United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-7039
JULIUS J. GOLZ,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Sean A. Ravin, Attorney at Law, of Washington, DC, argued for claimant-
appellant.
Steven M. Mager, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-
appellee. With him on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel was
Elizabeth A. Holt, Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were David J. Barrans, Deputy
Assistant General Counsel, and Dana Raffaelli, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel,
United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.
Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-7039
JULIUS J. GOLZ,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 07-0159, Judge
Alan G. Lance, Sr.
___________________________
DECIDED: January 4, 2010
___________________________
Before BRYSON, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
MOORE, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Julius J. Golz appeals from the decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming the decision of the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denying his claim for service connection for post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD). Because the Veterans Court properly interpreted 38 U.S.C.
§ 5103A and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c), we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Golz served on active duty in the U.S. Navy as an aviation ordinanceman
from February 1969 to November 1972. Service medical records do not show any
complaints of or treatment for a psychiatric condition. In a February 1995 decision, the
Social Security Administration (SSA) found Mr. Golz to be disabled due to severe low
back and leg pain stemming from a 1991 car accident. The SSA decision discussed the
substance of testimony and exhibits relating to Mr. Golz’s disability, including multiple
doctors’ reports and diagnoses, which related to Mr. Golz’s physical injuries. The
decision does not mention Mr. Golz’s mental health or indicate that records or testimony
reviewed by SSA discussed any psychiatric or mental health issues.
In January 2001, almost six years after SSA declared Mr. Golz disabled, Mr. Golz
underwent treatment at the Center for Treatment of Addictive Disorders (CTAD) located
at the VA Medical Center in Pittsburgh. An initial psychiatric evaluation from the CTAD
stated that Mr. Golz “feels he has PTSD,” but that he had not been previously
diagnosed with PTSD. The examiner diagnosed him with alcohol dependence and
possible major depressive disorder. In a January 29, 2001, medical evaluation, Mr.
Golz complained of symptoms of depression and again stated he felt that he had PTSD,
although he could not identify specific traumatic stressors.
In April 2001, Mr. Golz filed a claim for compensation with VA, claiming a
disability of PTSD. In his application for compensation, VA Form 21-526, Mr. Golz
checked “Yes” in answer to the question “Have you claimed or are you receiving
disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA)?” Mr. Golz underwent
a VA medical exam, after which the VA examiner diagnosed Mr. Golz with major
depressive disorder and polysubstance dependence in short-term remission. The VA
examiner further found that Mr. Golz did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD in
terms of identified stressors or symptoms. The VA regional office (RO) denied service
2009-7039 2
connection for PTSD in a July 2001 rating decision due to lack of evidence of either
PTSD or sufficient stressors. Mr. Golz did not appeal this rating decision.
Mr. Golz filed a motion in September 2003 to reopen his claim for service
connection for PTSD, and in November 2003 he received a VA PTSD examination.
Again, the VA examiner stated that Mr. Golz did not report symptoms or stressors
sufficient for a diagnosis of PTSD. The RO confirmed and continued the previous
denial of Mr. Golz’s claim in a December 2003 rating decision, which Mr. Golz
appealed.
In April 2004, Mr. Golz submitted new evidence in the form of a PTSD
questionnaire. The RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case, in which the RO
again denied entitlement to service connection for PTSD. Mr. Golz appealed to the
Board. On September 15, 2006, the Board reopened Mr. Golz’s claim on the basis of
the new evidence, but ultimately denied his claim, finding that evidence did not support
a diagnosis of PTSD. The Board also reviewed whether VA met its duty to assist Mr.
Golz. The Board noted that Mr. Golz’s file contained service medical and personnel
records, as well as “extensive VA medical evidence.” Further, the Board stated that Mr.
Golz did not identify any additional evidence he wanted the Board to obtain and
consider. The Board also reviewed a copy of the 1995 SSA decision awarding disability
benefits for a back disorder in the file. The Board, citing 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c) and 38
C.F.R. § 3.159(c), stated that “[t]he decision does not mention a psychiatric disorder,
thus, although the medical records accompanying the SSA decision are not in the file,
the Board finds that they would not be relevant to the claim on appeal.” The Board also
found no evidence corroborating Mr. Golz’s claimed in-service stressors.
2009-7039 3
Mr. Golz appealed the denial of service connection for PTSD to the Veterans
Court, asserting that VA failed to fulfill its duty to assist him by not obtaining his
complete SSA disability records. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board decision,
stating that the Board did not clearly err in finding that the SSA records relating to that
decision were not relevant to the claim. Mr. Golz appeals.
DISCUSSION
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). We review statutory
interpretation by the Veterans Court de novo. Glover v. West, 185 F.3d 1328, 1331
(Fed. Cir. 1999). Absent a constitutional issue, we may not review challenges to factual
determinations or challenges to the application of a law or regulation to facts. 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(d)(2) (2006).
At issue is whether the Veterans Court correctly interpreted 38 U.S.C. § 5103A
and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) by holding that VA is not required to obtain disability records
from SSA if VA determines, without review of the actual records, that there is no
reasonable possibility that such records are relevant to the veteran’s claim for VA
disability compensation. Mr. Golz argues that SSA records are always potentially
relevant to a veteran’s claim for disability under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A and 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.159(c) and therefore to satisfy VA’s duty to assist all SSA records must be obtained.
He argues that medical records in general, and SSA disability records in particular, are
always potentially relevant because such records may contain medical evidence
relevant to the veteran’s claim and it is impossible to determine the content or relevance
of medical records without examining them. The government responds that VA does
not have a duty to obtain irrelevant SSA records, and that § 5103A does not require VA
2009-7039 4
to obtain and review records in every case prior to determining whether they are
relevant to a veteran’s claim.
The duty to assist is not boundless in its scope. VA’s duty to assist claimants is
codified at 38 U.S.C. § 5103A. VA has a duty to “make reasonable efforts to assist a
claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant’s claim.” Id.
§ 5103A(a)(1). VA is not required to assist a claimant in obtaining identified records “if
no reasonable possibility exists that such assistance would aid in substantiating the
claim.” 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(2). Subsections (b) and (c) of § 5103A, which discuss
VA’s duty to obtain records on behalf of veterans, limit VA’s duty to assist to obtaining
only relevant records in five separate places. Section 5103A(b)(1) states that VA is
required to “make reasonable efforts to obtain relevant records (including private
records) that the claimant adequately identifies to the Secretary and authorizes the
Secretary to obtain.” Section 5103A(c), entitled “Obtaining records for compensation
claims,” describes specific types of records VA must assist the veteran in obtaining, but
only if they are “relevant to the claim.” Id. § 5103A(c) (emphasis added). The list
includes the “claimant’s service medical records and . . . other relevant records
pertaining to the claimant’s active military, naval, or air service,” id. § 5103A(c)(1)
(emphasis added), “[r]ecords of relevant medical treatment or examination of the
claimant at Department health-care facilities or at the expense of the Department,” id.
§ 5103A(c)(2) (emphasis added), and “[a]ny other relevant records held by any Federal
department or agency that the claimant adequately identifies and authorizes the
Secretary to obtain.” Id. § 5103A(c)(3) (emphasis added). The corresponding
2009-7039 5
regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c), explicitly lists SSA as an agency from which VA is
required to obtain relevant records.
We stated in McGee v. Peake that “Congress has explicitly defined the VA’s duty
to assist a veteran with the factual development of a benefit claim in terms of
relevance.” 511 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008). There can be no doubt that
Congress intended VA to assist veterans in obtaining records for compensation claims,
but it is equally clear that Congress only obligated the VA to obtain “relevant” records.
The duty to assist requires the Secretary to make reasonable efforts to obtain “evidence
necessary to substantiate the claimant’s claim for a benefit.”
The language of the statute is explicit: not all medical records or all SSA
disability records must be sought – only those that are relevant to the veteran’s claim.
To conclude that all medical records or all SSA disability records are relevant would
render the word “relevant” superfluous in the statute. See TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534
U.S. 19, 31 (2001) (“It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that a statute
ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause,
sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted)). If Congress meant for all medical records or all SSA disability
records to be obtained, it could have said “obtain all records” rather than “obtaining the
following records if relevant to the claim.” § 5103A(c) (emphasis added); see also id.
§ 5103(c)(1) (“other relevant records”); id. § 5103(c)(2) (“relevant medical treatment”);
id. § 5103(c)(3) (“[a]ny other relevant records”). Relevant records for the purpose of
§ 5103A are those records that relate to the injury for which the claimant is seeking
benefits and have a reasonable possibility of helping to substantiate the veteran’s claim.
2009-7039 6
See Black’s Law Dictionary 1316 (8th ed. 2004) (defining “relevant” as “[l]ogically
connected and tending to prove or disprove a matter in issue; having appreciable
probative value—that is, rationally tending to persuade people of the probability or
possibility of some alleged fact”). Not all medical records for a veteran will have a
reasonable possibility of aiding in the substantiation of a VA disability claim.
The Board did not err as a matter of law when it determined that VA met its duty
to assist Mr. Golz, even though VA did not request Mr. Golz’s SSA records. Mr. Golz
seeks service connection for PTSD. Service connection for PTSD is awarded when the
record before VA contains (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD, (2) credible
supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred, and (3)
medical evidence establishing a link between the claimed in-service stressor and the
current symptomatology. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (2009). Therefore, records relevant to
his claim are those relating to a medical diagnosis of PTSD, evidence corroborating
claimed in-service stressors, or medical evidence establishing a link between any in-
service stressor and a PTSD diagnosis.
The SSA decision identified testimony, documents, and medical reports relating
to Mr. Golz’s history of back pain. The Board reviewed whether VA met its duty to
assist Mr. Golz in obtaining relevant records pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5103A and 38
C.F.R. § 3.159(c), and made a factual determination as to the relevance of the SSA
records identified by Mr. Golz. The Board found that the identified SSA records would
not be relevant to Mr. Golz’s claim based on the SSA decision. The Board stated that
the SSA decision “does not mention a psychiatric disorder, thus, although the medical
records accompanying the SSA decision are not in the file, the Board finds that they
2009-7039 7
would not be relevant to the claim on appeal.” There was no specific allegation that the
evidence, reports or evaluations in conjunction with the SSA decision on back pain ever
delved into Mr. Golz mental health. The Board’s factual finding that the SSA records
would not be relevant to Mr. Golz’s claim is not reviewable by this court. See 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292 (absent a constitutional issue, 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”). The Veterans Court applied the law to the facts of the case and
affirmed, stating that “[t]he appellant does not argue—and the record does not
indicate—that the SSA records will provide any potentially relevant evidence relating to
the appellant’s mental health.” The Veterans Court reviewed the Board’s relevance
determination under the correct legal standard—whether it related to Mr. Golz’s mental
health or there is a reasonable possibility it could help substantiate Mr. Golz’s claim.
Therefore, the Veterans Court did not misinterpret 38 U.S.C. § 5103A in affirming the
Board’s decision.
Mr. Golz argues that the decision in this case is contrary to prior cases that held
that VA must review records before declaring them irrelevant for purposes of § 5103A.
There are, as Mr. Golz argues, cases that required VA to obtain SSA records. Each of
these cases, however, included a determination that VA did not meet its duty to assist
because the identified records had a reasonable possibility of assisting in substantiation
of the veteran’s claim. See Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(stating that “VA is statutorily required to obtain all of the veteran’s relevant service
medical records, not simply those which it can most conveniently locate”); McGee, 511
F.3d at 1355, 1358 (finding that the veteran’s service personnel records at issue “would
2009-7039 8
likely contain documentary evidence that may show whether McGee filed a claim for
benefits prior to discharge” after the Board denied entitlement to an earlier effective date
because the record did not contain any evidence of a previously filed claim); Quartuccio
v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187–88 (2002) (requiring that VA seek SSA records when
SSA determined the veteran disabled because of paranoid schizophrenia, the same
condition for which he was receiving SSA benefits); Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App.
363, 366, 370 (1992) (stating that an SSA decision that the veteran is unemployable is
relevant to his claim of entitlement to a total disability rating based on unemployability);
Clarkson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 565, 567–68 (1993) (granting voluntary remand to VA so
it could request SSA records relating to an SSA finding of unemployability when the
veteran was claiming entitlement to a total disability rating based on unemployability).
It is not the case that the government must obtain records in every case in order
to rule out their relevance. Such a decision would be akin to a determination that all
medical records must be obtained. Similarly, it is not the case that a record’s relevance
can always be determined without reviewing the record itself. The legal standard for
relevance requires VA to examine the information it has related to medical records and
if there exists a reasonable possibility that the records could help the veteran
substantiate his claim for benefits, the duty to assist requires VA to obtain the records.
When a SSA decision pertains to a completely unrelated medical condition and the
veteran makes no specific allegations that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the
medical records may nonetheless pertain to the injury for which the veteran seeks
benefits, relevance is not established. There must be specific reason to believe these
records may give rise to pertinent information to conclude that they are relevant.
2009-7039 9
In close or uncertain cases, the VA should be guided by the principles underlying
this uniquely pro-claimant system. VA has a duty to assist veterans and is required to
“fully and sympathetically develop the veteran’s claim to its optimum before deciding it
on the merits.” McGee, 511 F.3d at 1357 (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). As long as a reasonable possibility exists that the records are relevant to the
veteran’s claim, VA is required to assist the veteran in obtaining the identified records.
At the same time, we acknowledge that Congress has placed reasonable limits on VA’s
duty to assist. The relevancy limitation allows VA to focus its efforts on obtaining
documents that have a reasonable possibility of assisting claimants in substantiating
their claims for benefits.
CONCLUSION
Because the Veterans Court correctly interpreted VA’s duty to assist as found in
38 U.S.C. § 5103A and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c), the decision of the Veterans Court is
AFFIRMED.
COSTS
No Costs.
2009-7039 10