Background
Johnny D. Walker sought service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder in 1996, but the Department of Veterans Affairs denied his claim in part because his claimed stressor had not been confirmed. He did not appeal. After Walker requested reopening in 2008, a declassified military document was added to his file, and VA research relying partly on that document verified his claimed stressors. In March 2010, VA reopened the claim and awarded service connection effective November 2008. Walker did not appeal that decision.
In 2020, Walker invoked 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) and requested a new adjudication of the 1996 claim, arguing that the service records added in 2009 required reconsideration rather than merely reopening. VA treated the request as a challenge to the 2010 effective date and denied an earlier date. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals dismissed the matter as a freestanding earlier-effective-date claim, and the Veterans Court affirmed, concluding that VA had already satisfied § 3.156(c) in 2010 by considering all record evidence, including the newly associated service records.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit dismissed Walker’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Although Walker characterized his argument as challenging the Veterans Court’s interpretation of § 3.156(c), the court concluded that he was actually contesting the application of settled law to his particular facts. Under Morse v. McDonough, reconsideration under § 3.156(c) requires an analysis of all record evidence, including newly associated service records. The Veterans Court had applied that rule in determining that VA’s 2010 decision accomplished both reopening and reconsideration.
Because 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) bars the Federal Circuit from reviewing factual determinations or the application of law to particular facts, the court could not review that conclusion. It also declined to consider Walker’s argument that he lacked adequate notice of the 2010 reconsideration because he first raised it in his reply brief, thereby forfeiting it. The court found that his remaining arguments likewise raised no issue within its limited jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- A challenge to whether VA reconsidered a claim under § 3.156(c) may fall outside Federal Circuit jurisdiction when it merely disputes the application of settled law to the record.
- Under Morse, § 3.156(c) reconsideration requires VA to analyze all record evidence, including newly associated service department records; a decision may accomplish reconsideration even if VA describes the claim as reopened.
- An argument first raised in a reply brief is forfeited and ordinarily will not be considered on appeal.
Why It Matters
The nonprecedential decision underscores the narrow scope of Federal Circuit review in veterans-benefits cases. Labeling an issue as regulatory interpretation will not establish jurisdiction when the substance of the dispute concerns how an established legal standard was applied to a veteran’s individual record.
The ruling also highlights the importance of timely appealing VA decisions and presenting all appellate arguments in the opening brief, particularly when seeking an earlier effective date based on later-associated service department records.