Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Hensley v. West
212 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2000). ; Clearinghouse Number: 53044
Description
Veterans Appeals Court Used Overly Stringent Standard in Reviewing Claim’s “Well-Groundedness” and Improperly Applied de Novo Review
Abstract
The Federal Circuit vacated the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims’ decision that plaintiff had failed to state a
“well-grounded” claim for benefits and remanded the
case to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Claimant, a World War
II veteran, received benefits based on a diagnosis stemming from
exposure to mustard gas. In 1992 he also claimed a service
connection for heart disease— a nexus with mustard gas
exposure. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed a Regional
Office ruling that the claim was not well grounded. The Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims found that the board had misapplied
federal regulations but, relying on Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464
(Fed. Cir. 1997), found after a de novo review that the claim was
not well grounded as a matter of law either. Before the Federal
Circuit, claimant challenged the Epps holding that a veteran must
present a well-grounded claim in order to trigger the
department’s duty to assist in developing the claim. He also
contended that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims improperly
made de novo findings on facts that had not been addressed by the
board and that the court used an incorrect standard in determining
well-groundedness. The Federal Circuit declined to reverse Epps but
agreed with claimant on the issue of de novo review. Although
well-groundedness is a question of law, a conclusion on this issue
is based on factual findings which may be overturned only if
clearly erroneous. The court agreed that the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims applied an incorrect standard and noted that the
standard for well-groundedness was “uniquely low.” Any
higher standard, said the court, would “undermine the entire
veteran-friendly nature of the veterans claim system.”
