Moran v. Principi , 2002 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 588 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •              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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-754

Citation Numbers: 16 Vet. App. 243, 2002 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 588, 2002 WL 1869616

Judges: Kramer, Farley, Steinberg

Filed Date: 8/15/2002

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/16/2024