holding that a mental distress injury resulting from a shooting at a VA domiciliary “ ‘was coincidental to residing at a VA domiciliary and ... not caused by the actual provision of hospital care, medical or surgical treatment^] or examination’ ” (quoting Johnnie R. Mang-ham, BVA 05-07615, at 10 (Feb. 7, 2007))
How later courts described this case
- holding that a mental distress injury resulting from a shooting at a VA domiciliary “ ‘was coincidental to residing at a VA domiciliary and ... not caused by the actual provision of hospital care, medical or surgical treatment^] or examination’ ” (quoting Johnnie R. Mang-ham, BVA 05-07615, at 10 (Feb. 7, 2007))
- “Congress repudiated the notion that a coincidental event occurring during ‘hospitalization’ could lead to recovery under section 1151, purposefully replacing that word with ‘hospital care.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KASOLD, Judge,
concurring in part:
Although subtly different than expressed in the majority opinion, I believe the threshold question in this instance is whether Mr. Mangham was receiving VA treatment or care as defined by 38 U.S.C. § 1151 at the time he observed the shooting that he claims is the cause of his reported mental distress. I agree with the majority that he was not. Accordingly, Mr. Mangham cannot, and has not, established the relevance of the Root Cause Analysis, and his argument that he should be permitted to review the analysis under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 fails.
I also agree that because Mr. Mangham was not receiving section 1151 care at the time of the incident underlying his claim, we need not reach the issue of whether the shooting constituted “an event not reasonably foreseeable.” For this same reason, however, we need not reach the issue of causation, and I do not concur in the nonessential discussion thereof.