Who doesnt like a little "Frost"ing? In this precedential case, the issue came up if his Secondary conditions can come before the primary conditions? Well, it can!!! That is the Frosting!!
Quote
.Entitlement to Secondary Service Connection on a Causation Basis Has a Single Temporal Requirement
This Court long ago established that a disability may be found service connected on a secondary basis if there is
evidence demonstrating that the disability is (1)caused by a service- connected disease or injury or (2)aggravated
by a service-connected disease or injury. See Allen v.Brown ,7 Vet.App.439,448 (1995)(en
banc);38 C.F.R.§3.310(a)(2017)
.Because Mr.Frost does not argue that his GSW residuals were aggravated by his service-connected PTSD,the Court's
analysis will focus on the former method of attaining secondary service connection,the causation basis.
Secondary service connection for VA benefit purposes is not addressed in any statute.
Instead,the causation method of attaining secondary service connection is addressed in §3.310(a),
which provides in relevant part that a disability "proximately due to or the result of a service- connected disease or injury shall be service connected."38 C.F.R.§3.310(a).
Current precedent caselaw speaks to several aspects of the relationship between primary and secondary disabilities
under §3.310(a). See Ellington v.Peake, 541 F.3d 1364 (Fed.Cir.2008)(effective dates); Roper v.Nicholson,
20 Vet.App.173,177-78 (2006)(interpreting the § 3.310(a)proviso that when secondary service connection is established,"the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition"); Allen,
7 Vet.App.at 444-50 (analyzing whether § 3.310(a)contemplates aggravation of a non-service-connected condition by a service-connected condition).
However,we have no explicit precedent caselaw concerning the temporal issue that the Secretary raised in his
brief. Normally when courts are faced with interpreting regulatory language,examination of the regulation's text is the starting point. See Good Samaritan Hosp.v. Shalala ,508 U.S.402,409
(1993)("The starting point in interpreting a statute [or regulation] is its language."); Petitti v. McDonald
,27 Vet.App.415,422 (2015) ("Regulatory interpretation begins with the language of the regulation,the plain meaning of which is derived from its text and its structure.").If the plain meaning of the regulation is clear from its language,that meaning controls and that is the end of the matter. Tropf v.Nicholson ,20 Vet.App.317, 320 (2006).However,if
the language is ambiguous,courts should defer to the agency's interpretation of its regulation unless that
interpretation is inconsistent with the language of the regulation or plainly erroneous or does not
represent the agency's fair and considered view on the matter. Auer v.Robbins ,519 U.S.452,461- 62 (1997);
Bowles v.Seminole Rock &Sand
Petitti
,27 Vet.App.at 423
In this case,the Secretary first argued a temporal component to § 3.310(a),that a veteran would be precluded as a
matter of law from entitlement to secondary service connection on a causation basis where the
purported primary condition was not service connected, or even diagnosed,at the time that the secondary
condition was incurred.However,the plain language of §3.310(a)— that a disability "proximately due to
or the result of a service-connected disease or injury shall be service connected"— does not establish such a temporal
requirement. See Petitti 27 Vet.App.at 422.
Nothing in the text of the regulation specifies or indicates that the primary condition must be service connected,
or even diagnosed,at the time the secondary condition is incurred.
''''''''''''''''''''
......this point,the Court would have reservations concerning the Secretary's initial interpretation.A
temporal requirement such as that suggested by the Secretary would make little sense given the current protracted nature of veterans benefits claims adjudication.The time from date of filing of a claim for service connection
to date of resolution of that claim often exceeds several years and may exceed a decade. See
Question
broncovet
Who doesnt like a little "Frost"ing? In this precedential case, the issue came up if his Secondary conditions can come before the primary conditions? Well, it can!!! That is the Frosting!!
For the rest of the cake, Frosting and all, go here:
http://search.uscourts.cavc.gov/isysquery/26b9afbc-7ee8-47c9-a564-505b08ba6e61/1/details/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
2
1
Popular Days
Sep 22
3
Sep 14
1
Sep 19
1
Top Posters For This Question
broncovet 2 posts
GeekySquid 2 posts
NissanDriver 1 post
Popular Days
Sep 22 2018
3 posts
Sep 14 2018
1 post
Sep 19 2018
1 post
4 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now