United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-7174
DELORIS G. WOOD,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Zachary M. Stolz, Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick LLP of Washington, DC, argued
for claimant-appellant. On the brief was Richard Paul Cohen, Cohen, Abate & Cohen,
L.C., of Morgantown, West Virginia. Of counsel was Ronald L. Smith, Disabled American
Veterans, of Washington, DC.
Brian T. Edmunds, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.
On the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director,
and Claudia Burke, Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski, Deputy
Assistant General Counsel, and Tracey P. Warren, Attorney, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.
Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Judge Donald L. Ivers
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-7174
DELORIS G. WOOD,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 05-2164, Judge
Donald L. Ivers.
__________________________
DECIDED: March 28, 2008
__________________________
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, DYK, Circuit Judge, and KENNELLY, District Judge. *
Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge MICHEL. Circuit Judge DYK dissents.
MICHEL, Chief Judge.
Deloris G. Wood appeals from the final decision of the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims ("Veterans Court") sustaining the Department of Veterans Affairs
("VA") denial of her claim for dependency and indemnity compensation ("DIC"). See
Wood v. Nicholson, No. 05-2164 (Vet. App. Oct. 4, 2006) ("Wood II"). Because the
Veterans Court committed legal error by failing to apply 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a) in
*
Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, District Judge, United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
reviewing the VA's denial of her request for assistance, and we cannot decide whether
the error was harmless without exceeding our jurisdiction, we vacate and remand.
I. BACKGROUND
Mrs. Wood's husband, Thomas W. Wood, served in the U.S. Army during World
War II, leaving the service in March 1946. Shortly before his discharge, Mr. Wood
slipped in the shower and incurred a severe head injury on December 11, 1945. He
was treated at a base hospital, which kept him on bed rest before returning him to duty.
Private and VA medical records, Mrs. Wood's testimony, their son's testimony, and his
own personal documents indicate that Mr. Wood suffered from chronic severe
headaches from shortly after his in-service head injury throughout his life. As a result,
Mr. Wood took large quantities of numerous medications to deal with the headaches.
The medical records provide evidence that doctors, including a VA physician, believed
his headaches were the result of his original in-service head injury.
Mr. Wood also suffered from numerous other health problems, some related to
his headaches and some unrelated. His headache medications, for example, caused
gastrointestinal bleeding from ulcers on multiple occasions. In 1985, Mr. Wood
developed hydrocephalus (water on the brain), which required the insertion of a
ventriculo-peritoneal shunt to relieve pressure on his brain. This shunt had to be
replaced multiple times due to infection and other reasons, and it remained in place for
the rest of his life. He also developed hypertension. In June 1991, Mr. Wood sustained
a second head injury, again falling in the shower; the injury caused a grand mal seizure,
and he also experienced a serious brain hemorrhage (a subdural hematoma). He fell
again in 1992, again suffering a serious brain hemorrhage (a basal brain bleed). Mr.
2007-7174 2
Wood was also diagnosed with lung cancer in 1980 and had surgery as a result. The
cancer resurfaced in 1997 and was treated with radiation therapy.
Mr. Wood died on November 2, 1998. The primary cause of death according to
the autopsy report was heart disease (myocardial ischemia). The detailed autopsy
report of the examining physician, Dr. James W. Spindler, M.D., also listed eighteen
"contributing factors," including "history of a remote history of fall with subsequent
severe headaches, 1946." Appellant's App'x at 1235-36. The death certificate by the
coroner, 1 however, only listed his cancer, feeding tube, and ventriculo-peritoneal shunt
as "[o]ther significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in [the primary
cause of death]" in the limited space provided on the one-page form. Id. at 1233.
Mrs. Wood filed for DIC benefits in February 1999. Her claim was ultimately
denied by the VA regional office ("RO") in February 2005. She appealed to the Board
and requested that the VA assist her by obtaining a medical opinion to assess whether
her husband's headaches and related conditions were material contributory causes of
his death. The Board denied her request for assistance and held that the RO correctly
determined that Mr. Wood's headaches were not a contributory cause of death within
the meaning of 38 C.F.R. § 3.312(a), thus sustaining the RO's denial of benefits. In
large part, the Board's decision was based on the fact that although the autopsy report
1
The government confirmed at oral argument that unlike the pathologist
who drafted the autopsy report, the coroner who filled out the death certificate form was
not a medical doctor, which is common. This disparity in qualifications, along with the
vastly greater detail generally provided in autopsy reports, may be why the VA, in
enacting 38 C.F.R. § 3.312, specifically named autopsy reports as particularly probative
of what conditions contributed to death. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.312(a) ("[Causes of death]
will be determined by exercise of sound judgment, without recourse to speculation, after
a careful analysis has been made of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
death of the veteran, including, particularly, autopsy reports.") (emphasis added).
2007-7174 3
listed Mr. Wood's history of headaches as a contributing factor of his death, the death
certificate omitted that factor from its listing of just three contributory factors.
Mrs. Wood next appealed to the Veterans Court, which affirmed the Board's
decision in a brief one-judge non-precedential opinion. The Veterans Court held that
the Board had not erred by denying Mrs. Wood's request for assistance because she
had not met all of the prerequisites under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2) to require the VA to
obtain a medical opinion. Additionally, the Veterans Court held that the Board was not
clearly erroneous in finding that Mr. Wood's head conditions did not contribute
"substantially and materially to his death" as required by 38 C.F.R. § 3.312(a). Wood II,
slip op. at 3. Specifically, the Veterans Court held that, despite the autopsy report's
listing of Mr. Wood's head injury and subsequent headaches as a contributing factor of
his death, the Board correctly relied instead on the death certificate that omitted it. Id.
II. DISCUSSION
A.
The key threshold issue in this case is whether Mrs. Wood was entitled to
assistance from the VA in obtaining a medical opinion to review and reconcile conflicting
medical evidence in the record under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act ("VCAA").
The Veterans Court held that she was not so entitled because she did not meet all of
the required elements of 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2), which sets forth conditions on the
VA's duty to obtain medical opinions under § 5103A(d)(1). The government concedes,
however, that § 5103A(d)(1) does not apply to DIC claims and that the Veterans Court
thus erred as a matter of law by reviewing the Board's denial of her request for
assistance solely under that provision of the VCAA. Rather, the Veterans Court should
2007-7174 4
have applied the general duty to assist provision of 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a), which
provides in relevant part:
(a) Duty To Assist.
(1) The Secretary shall make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant
in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim for a
benefit under a law administered by the Secretary.
(2) The Secretary is not required to provide assistance to a
claimant under this section if no reasonable possibility exists that such
assistance would aid in substantiating the claim.
Since DIC benefits are a "benefit under a law administered by the Secretary," this
provision clearly applies to Mrs. Wood's request for assistance here.
We have recently held that § 5103A(a) "does not always require the Secretary to
assist the claimant in obtaining a medical opinion or examination." DeLaRosa v. Peake,
515 F.3d 1319, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2008). But § 5103A(a) does require the VA to assist a
claimant in obtaining a medical opinion or examination whenever such an opinion is
"necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim." 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(1); DeLaRosa,
515 F.3d at 1322. In fact, the statute only excuses the VA from making reasonable
efforts to provide such assistance, if requested, when "no reasonable possibility exists
that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claim." 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(2).
Thus, the Veterans Court erred by not assessing whether the free medical opinion
requested by Mrs. Wood was "necessary to substantiate [her] claim," or whether "no
reasonable possibility exists" that the medical opinion requested by Mrs. Wood "would
aid in substantiating [her] claim," under § 5103A(a).
B.
Though under DeLaRosa, and as is conceded, the Veterans Court committed
legal error, it is still necessary to examine whether its decision can be affirmed
2007-7174 5
nonetheless on the ground that the error was harmless. As we noted in Szemraj v.
Principi, however, the limited scope of our review of Veterans Court decisions also limits
our application of the harmless error principle. 357 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Generally, under 28 U.S.C. § 2111, we must disregard "errors or defects which do not
affect the substantial rights of the parties." However, under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we
may only review "the validity of a decision of the [Veterans Court] on a rule of law or of
any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as
to a factual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans Court] in making the decision."
Congress then went even further, providing that, absent a constitutional question, this
court may not review "(A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a
law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case." 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2);
see also Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In D’Amico v. West, we held that the Veterans Court had erred by failing to apply
a statute, 38 U.S.C. § 5108, in its review of a Board decision. 209 F.3d 1322, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2000). The government argued in that case that the Veterans Court decision
should nonetheless be affirmed because the Board, unlike the Veterans Court, had
applied the statute in its decision and concluded that the claimant had not met its
requirements. Id. We declined to affirm on the basis of harmless error because we
lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's factual findings, and so we remanded to the
Veterans Court. Id. at 1327-28. In other words, we lacked jurisdiction to determine
whether in fact the error was harmless because doing so in that case required fact-
finding and/or application of law to fact. Since the Veterans Court had erred as a matter
2007-7174 6
of law, and we could not affirm on the basis of harmless error, we had no choice but to
remand, which we did.
However, four years later in Szemraj, we held that the jurisdictional limitations of
38 U.S.C. § 7292 do not bar this court from affirming a Veterans Court decision on the
basis of harmless error when application of the correct legal standard to undisputed
facts establishes that the judgment of the Veterans Court was correct, despite the legal
error(s) in its reasoning. 357 F.3d at 1375-76. We based our holding in large part on
our decision in Bailey v. Principi, where we reviewed a Veterans Court decision
rejecting equitable tolling but relying on a legal standard from a case later reversed by
this court en banc. See 351 F.3d 1381, 1383-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We vacated the
Veterans Court decision and set forth the correct legal standard, but we then proceeded
to apply the standard to the facts to hold that the claimant should have been afforded
equitable tolling. We explained that although we cannot review applications of law to
fact, "when the material facts are not in dispute and the adoption of a particular legal
standard would dictate the outcome of the equitable tolling claim, this court has treated
the question of the availability of equitable tolling as a matter of law that we are
authorized by statute to address." Id. at 1384 (citing Jaquay v. Principi, 304 F.3d 1276,
1289 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc); Santana-Venegas v. Principi, 314 F.3d 1293, 1298
(Fed. Cir. 2002)) (emphasis added).
In DeLaRosa, we implicitly followed the Szemraj rule in a case with facts similar,
though not identical, to those of the present case. There, too, the Veterans Court erred
by analyzing a DIC claimant's request for a medical opinion under § 5103A(d) instead of
§ 5103A(a). DeLaRosa, 515 F.3d at 1321-22. We held, however, that the error was
2007-7174 7
harmless because, as the Board noted, the record contained no competent evidence
whatsoever of the post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") that the veteran's spouse
alleged was service connected. Id. at 1322. The only medical evidence of PTSD in the
record was one doctor's speculative opinion, which the Board excluded from its
consideration. 2 Indisputably, the record lacked any other medical evidence of PTSD.
We then conducted a harmless error analysis based on that indisputable lack of
competent evidence, consistent with Szemraj, and held that the error was harmless in
that case, affirming the Veterans Court on that ground.
C.
The dissent implies that DeLaRosa holds that, when the (inapplicable)
requirements of subsection (d) are not met, misapplying § 5103A(d) rather than
applying § 5103A(a) is per se harmless error because subsection (d) is more
"favorable" to claimants as a matter of law. See Dissent at 2. We disagree and do not
read DeLaRosa as making such an over-broad holding.
First, subsections (d) and (a) have dramatically different scope, as we recognized
in DeLaRosa. 515 F.3d at 1321-22. While § 5103A(a) applies to any "benefit under a
law administered by the Secretary" and thus encompasses DIC claims, § 5103A(d) only
2
The opinion was drafted six years after the veteran's death, without having
ever examined the veteran during his life, by an internist and geriatrician (i.e., not a
psychologist or other mental health professional). DeLaRosa, 515 F.3d at 1320. The
Board refused to consider the evidence, deeming it speculative and without probative
weight. Id. at 1321. We lack jurisdiction to review such evidentiary rulings of the Board,
thus that evidence could not create a dispute of fact precluding harmless error review
on appeal.
2007-7174 8
applies to "claim[s] for disability compensation," 3 which does not include DIC claims.
Id.; see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a), (d).
Second, the two provisions apply wholly different and unrelated requirements.
As already discussed, subsection (a) requires the VA to provide a claimant with a free
medical opinion whenever such an opinion is (1) "necessary to substantiate [the] claim,"
unless (2) "no reasonable possibility exists that such assistance would aid in
substantiating [the] claim." 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a). By contrast, under subsection (d),
the claimant must demonstrate that the record evidence (1) "contains competent
evidence that the claimant has a current disability, or persistent or recurrent symptoms
of disability;" (2) "indicates that the disability or symptoms may be associated with the
claimant's active military, naval, or air service;" and (3) "does not contain sufficient
medical evidence for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim." Id. § 5103A(d)(2).
The brief and unexplained statement in DeLaRosa that § 5103A(d) is "even more
restrictive" than § 5103A(a) cannot reasonably be read as a broad holding that failing to
meet all of the requirements of subsection (d) automatically means the very different
requirements of subsection (a) are not met, regardless of the facts. Rather, our opinion
in DeLaRosa carefully and expressly tied its holding to the uncontroverted facts of that
case. See DeLaRosa, 515 F.3d at 1322 ("[T]he Board determined that there was no
medical evidence of PTSD during the veteran's lifetime."). And as explained earlier,
3
The VA defines "disability compensation" as "a monthly payment made by
the Department of Veterans Affairs to a veteran because of service-connected disability
. . . if the veteran is disabled as the result of a personal injury or disease (including
aggravation of a condition existing prior to service) while in active service if the injury or
the disease was incurred or aggravated in line of duty. 38 C.F.R. § 3.4(a), (b)(1). Thus,
as the government conceded, payments to a widow or widower of a veteran are not
"disability compensation."
2007-7174 9
under our binding precedents in D'Amico and Szemraj, we could only affirm on the basis
of harmless error in DeLaRosa because the relevant facts were uncontroverted. Thus,
we now turn to the question of whether we must follow D'Amico in this case, or whether
it falls within the exception to D'Amico outlined in Szemraj and applied in DeLaRosa. 4
D.
We conclude that we cannot affirm the Veterans Court here on the basis of
harmless error, thus following D'Amico. Although DeLaRosa has some facts similar to
those of the present case, a key difference here precludes us on jurisdictional grounds
from determining that the Veterans Court's error was harmless.
As noted earlier, our DeLaRosa decision was predicated on the indisputable lack
of any competent evidence indicating PTSD. Here, however, the evidence is split and
thus the medical facts are genuinely disputed. The crux of both the Board and Veterans
Court decisions was the weighing of conflicting pieces of competent medical evidence,
principally the autopsy report and the death certificate. As the Veterans Court
explained:
Although the Board acknowledged that the autopsy report listed the
veteran's remote history of a fall in service and associated headaches as
one of 18 contributing factors to his death . . . the death certificate . . . did
not list the veteran's in-service head injury as a significant condition
contributing to death.
* * *
As noted by the Board, the record in the instant case contained medical
evidence of the cause of death and remote evidence of a history of head
laceration in service with a history of associated headaches, but no
medical evidence suggesting that the veteran's headaches or head
laceration materially contributed to cause his death.
4
The dissent suggests we construe DeLaRosa as violating D'Amico. See
Dissent at 3. But we do not read DeLaRosa as contrary to D'Amico. Moreover, the
dissent ignores our precedent in Szemraj. As discussed above, this court's analysis in
DeLaRosa was entirely consistent with D'Amico as clarified by Szemraj.
2007-7174 10
Wood II, slip op. at 3-4 (emphasis in original). The Veterans Court thus clearly
recognized that the autopsy report was competent medical evidence of a possible link
between Mr. Wood's in-service head injury and his death. However, the Veterans Court
accepted the Board's finding that the probative weight of the death certificate
overpowered that of the autopsy report, holding that, as a result, neither the autopsy
report nor any other medical evidence in the record was sufficient to prove material
contribution, the standard required by the applicable VA regulation governing
contributory causes of death. 38 C.F.R. § 3.312. The Board's reasoning was similar:
The record does show that the veteran injured his head in service, and the
autopsy report does list a remote history of a fall in 1946, with subsequent
severe headaches, as a contributing factor [of his death]. . . . Yet the
Certificate of Death does not list the veteran's in-service head injury as a
significant condition contributing to death. There is no medical evidence
indicating that the veteran's head injury in service, or his headaches after
service, contributed substantially and materially to his death.
In re Wood, No. 00-09 674A, slip op. at 10-11 (Bd. Vet. App. Feb. 28, 2005) (emphasis
added). Thus, far from an indisputable lack of any competent evidence as was the case
in DeLaRosa, the record evidence here was itself conflicted.
Because the evidence here is split, we cannot conduct a harmless error analysis
without exceeding the bounds of our jurisdiction, which precludes fact review. As we
explained in Szemraj, this court can examine the harmless error question only where
the relevant facts are undisputed because applying a dispositive legal standard to
undisputed facts is essentially a matter of law, not fact. Szemraj, 357 F.3d at 1375-76
(citing Bailey, 351 F.3d at 1383-84). When the facts are undisputed, we are merely
accepting the facts as found and as conceded to be correct by all parties. But when, as
here, the facts are genuinely in dispute, assessing whether the evidence would support
2007-7174 11
the Veterans Court's judgment even under the correct legal standard would require
factual analyses that are expressly beyond this court's jurisdiction.
More specifically, we cannot decide whether the record here would support the
denial of the requested medical review even under § 5103A(a) without, for example,
weighing the relative probative values of the autopsy report and the death certificate. In
order to determine if Mrs. Wood's substantive rights were prejudiced by the Veterans
Court's failure to apply the § 5103A(a) standard, we would have to determine whether
the requested medical opinion was "necessary to substantiate" her claim and whether
there was "no reasonable possibility that [the medical opinion] would aid in
substantiating the claim." See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a). Thus, we would be required to
determine whether the examining pathologist's detailed report of his autopsy findings—
which stated that Mr. Wood's severe headaches contributed to his death—held
sufficient probative value such that the requested medical review and opinion would be
"necessary to substantiate" Mrs. Wood's claim despite the coroner's omission of
headaches from the one-page death certificate form. Indeed, the record is rife with
evidence that appears to add to the factual disputes in the case. For example, a report
of a VA medical examination conducted in 1998, not long before Mr. Wood's death, also
described his chronic severe headaches as well as the gastrointestinal bleeding,
excessive amounts of necessary medications, and general degradation in health
associated with them. Appellant's App'x at 1097. The report further indicated that Mr.
Wood's headaches are "likely to be post-traumatic secondary to the [in-service] injury in
1945." Id. at 1098. This and other record evidence must all be assessed to determine
whether the requested medical opinion is "necessary" to resolve the apparent factual
2007-7174 12
disputes and whether "no reasonable possibility exists" that such an opinion would aid
in substantiating Mrs. Wood's claim. Such assessments are precisely the types of
factual inquiries that are beyond this court's jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292. Thus we must remand to the Veterans Court to conduct those assessments but
under the correct legal standard.
CONCLUSION
We hold that the Veterans Court erred as a matter of law by failing to apply 38
U.S.C. § 5103A(a), instead wrongly applying § 5103A(d), in reviewing the Board's denial
of Mrs. Wood's request for a medical review. We further hold that we cannot affirm the
Veterans Court's judgment on the basis of harmless error because doing so would
require resolution of genuine factual disputes, which is beyond this court's jurisdiction.
Therefore, we vacate the Veterans Court's decision and remand for the court to
determine whether Mrs. Wood's request for a medical opinion was wrongly denied
under § 5103A(a).
VACATED and REMANDED
2007-7174 13
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-7174
DELORIS G. WOOD,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 05-2164, Judge
Donald L. Ivers.
DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The appellant is the widow of a deceased veteran who
seeks to recover dependency and indemnity compensation (“DIC”) under 38 U.S.C.
§ 1310, which allows recovery when a “veteran dies . . . from a service-connected or
compensable disability.” 38 U.S.C. § 1310(a). She claims that her husband’s death
was caused by a service connected disability and that the Department of Veterans
Affairs was required to assist her by providing a medical opinion as to the cause of
death.
The majority holds that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) and the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) erred when they addressed the latter
issue because they applied 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d), (which in some circumstances
requires a medical examination of a claimant), rather than section 5103A(a), (which
requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to seek a medical opinion when “necessary to
substantiate the claimant's claim”). I agree. But the majority goes on to hold that this
error was harmful error and to require a remand. On this point I disagree.
It seems to me that the majority’s conclusion that the Veterans Court’s error was
harmful is not consistent with our recent decision in DeLaRosa v. Peake, 515 F.3d 319
(Fed. Cir. 2008), which involved an identical issue. Contrary to the majority, I read this
court’s opinion in DeLaRosa to have concluded that subsection (d) imposes a more
favorable standard, and to have held that a remand was accordingly not required when
the Board and the Veterans Court erroneously applied subsection (d) rather than (a) to
determine whether to require a medical opinion. Id. at 1322. The DeLaRosa court’s
holding that this error was harmless because the proper standard, under (a), would
have been less favorable to the claimant than the standard applied, under (d), is
apparent from the opinion. The court stated:
In light of the Board’s finding that the even more restrictive
§ 5103A(d) did not require the Secretary to provide a medical opinion and
our holding that § 5103A(a) does not always require the Secretary to
obtain a medical opinion, we conclude that the Veterans Court’s
application of § 5103A(d) was harmless error.
Id. (citation omitted, emphasis added); see also id. at 1321-22 (concluding that
subsection (a) does not always require the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide a
medical opinion because such a construction would render (d) meaningless). This
panel is bound by the court’s holding in DeLaRosa.
The majority dismisses DeLaRosa as holding “that the error was harmless
because, as the Board noted, the record contained no competent evidence whatsoever”
as to service connection. Maj. Op. at 7-8. In other words, the majority attempts to
distinguish DeLaRosa on the ground that there the facts were undisputed, whereas in
2007-7174 2
this case they are not. In fact, in DeLaRosa, as here, there was a conflict in the
evidence as to causation, and the Board had held the evidence insufficient to establish
causation because the evidence favorable to the claimant “was . . . without probative
value.” DeLaRosa, 515 F.3d at 1321. I cannot read DeLaRosa as holding that the
correct standard was more favorable and then exceeding our jurisdiction by determining
whether the same factual result would have been reached using the correct standard.
Such an interpretation of DeLaRosa would bring it into conflict with D’Amico v. West,
209 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to
determine whether an error is harmless if that determination requires application of a
legal standard to the facts of a particular case). In my view, DeLaRosa can be read
only as holding that the correct standard of (a) is less favorable to the claimant than the
standard of (d). So read, it is inconsistent not with D’Amico, but with the majority
opinion here.
Finally, I note that there is another legal issue in this case not addressed by the
majority. But this issue was not properly raised on appeal. Mrs. Wood asserted for the
first time at oral argument a regulatory construction argument regarding 38 C.F.R. §
3.312(c)(1), 1 which establishes the standard for when a service connected disability will
1
The relevant text of the regulation provides:
Contributory cause of death is inherently one not related to the
principal cause. In determining whether the service-connected disability
contributed to death, it must be shown that it contributed substantially or
materially; that it combined to cause death; that it aided or lent assistance
to the production of death. It is not sufficient to show that it causally
shared in producing death, but rather it must be shown that there was a
causal connection.
38 C.F.R. § 3.312(c)(1).
2007-7174 3
be considered a contributory cause of death for purposes of determining entitlement to
dependency and indemnity compensation (“DIC”). Mrs. Wood urges that the Veterans
Court and the Board erred by stating that a disability must contribute substantially and
materially to death, whereas the proper standard is whether it contributed “substantially
or materially.” She contends that the term “materially” has an independent meaning
different from “substantially,” that a disability may contribute “materially” even if it does
not contribute “substantially,” and that neither the Board nor the Veterans Court
separately considered whether a service-related disability contributed “materially” to her
husband’s death under the proper definition of “materially.”
Mrs. Wood has not demonstrated that “substantially” and “materially” have
different meanings, either in the context of this regulation or more generally. Indeed,
the meanings of the two terms appear to be largely the same. 2 However, I would
decline to decide the proper construction of “substantially or materially” in regulation
section 3.312(c)(1) in this case because there is no indication that this issue was raised
before either the Board or the Veterans Court and because it was not raised in the
briefs in this court.
Under the circumstances, I would affirm the decision of the Veterans Court.
2
Webster’s defines “material,” in relevant part, as “being of real importance
or great consequence,” listing “substantial” as a synonym, Webster’s Third New Int’l
Dictionary 1392 (2002), and defines “substantial” as “being of moment” or “being that
specified to a large degree or in the main.” Id. at 2280. Black’s Law Dictionary defines
“material” as either “[h]aving some logical connection with the consequential facts” or
“[o]f such a nature that knowledge of the item would affect a person’s decision-making
process; significant; essential[.]” Black’s Law Dictionary 991 (7th ed. 1999)
2007-7174 4