Opinion

Moran v. Principi

  • 16 Vet. App. 243
  • 2002 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 588
  • 2002 WL 1869616
Court
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Filed
Aug 15, 2002
Status
Published
On the bench
Kramer, Farley, Steinberg
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 25.4%

The opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 99-754

DAVID C. MORAN , APPELLANT ,

V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY and STEINBERG, Judges.

ORDER

The appellant appeals a January 29, 1999, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA)

that denied a claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The appellant

argues in his brief, inter alia, that 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) is invalid on the ground that it imposes on

noncombat veterans seeking service connection for PTSD an evidentiary burden that is greater than

that required for other disabilities. Specifically, a noncombat veteran seeking service connection for

PTSD must provide "credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred."

38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (2001); see Doran v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 283, 288-89 (1994). Whereas an

appellant seeking service connection for a disability other than PTSD may show in-service

incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury by lay evidence. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.303(a) (2001); see also Smith v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 147, 148 (1992) (per curiam order);

Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 24, 25-26 (1991).

In view of the appellant's argument, the Court requires further briefing on the following

questions: Does the provision of § 3.304(f) quoted above provide, in essence, that uncorroborated

lay evidence as to a nonmedical question cannot meet the benefit-of-the-doubt threshold of 38 U.S.C.

§ 5107(b)? If so, is the Secretary authorized under 38 U.S.C. § 501(a)(1) to promulgate such a

regulation?

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, not later than 30 days after the date of this order, the appellant file and serve

on the Secretary a supplemental memorandum addressing the questions above. It is further

ORDERED that, not later than 30 days after the appellant's service, the Secretary file and

serve on the appellant a supplemental memorandum responding to the appellant's memorandum and

addressing the questions above. It is further

ORDERED that, not later than 14 days after the Secretary's service, the appellant may file

and serve a reply. Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Clerk will,

after supplemental briefing is complete, schedule oral argument as the business of the Court permits.

DATED: August 15, 2002 PER CURIAM.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.