Vet.App. No.

10-0484

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

FRAZIER FOREMAN,
Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS

BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

WILL A. GUNN
General Counsel

R. RANDALL CAMPBELL
Assistant General Counsel

GAYLE E. STROMMEN
Deputy Assistant General Counsel

PURNIMA G. BOOMINATHAN
Appellate Attorney
Office of the General Counsel (027E)
U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20420
(202) 461-1356
Attorneys for Appellee
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ISSUE PRESENTED....................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................................................2

A. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT........................................................2

B. NATURE OF THE CASE ....................................................................2

C. STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................2

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...............................................................5

ARGUMENT …………… ............................................................................. 6

A. THE COURT SHOULD REMAND APPELLANT’S CLAIM FOR AN

INCREASED RATING FOR A BILATERAL FOOT DISORDER FOR
THE BOARD TO CLARIFY THE NATURE OF THE DISABILTY ON
APPEAL ............................................................................................ 6

B. APPELLANT HAS ABANDONED ALL ISSUES NOT ARGUED

IN HIS BRIEF .................................................................................... 8

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 9

ii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517 (1995) .................................................. 6, 7

Best v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 18 (2001) ....................................................... 8
Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed.Cir. 2009) ............................ 5, 8
Disabled American Veterans v. Gober, 234 F.3d 682 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ...... 9
Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet.App. 119 (1999) ............................................... 6
Fleshman v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 548 (1996) ................................................ 7
Statutes and Regulations

38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) ................................................................................ 6

38 U.S.C. § 7252(a) .................................................................................... 2
38 C.F.R. § 3.310 ........................................................................................ 8

Record Before the Agency (RBA) Citations

3-17 ..................................................................................................... 2, 4, 7
32-39 ....................................................................................................... 4, 7
41 ................................................................................................................ 4
115-40 ......................................................................................................... 4
176-80 ......................................................................................................... 4
201-04 ......................................................................................................... 4
226-51 ......................................................................................................... 4
252-82. .................................................................................................... 3, 4
339-50 ......................................................................................................... 3
351-60 ......................................................................................................... 3
602-21 ......................................................................................................... 3
624-26 ......................................................................................................... 3
637 .............................................................................................................. 3
651-67 ......................................................................................................... 3
672-73 ......................................................................................................... 3
773-76 ......................................................................................................... 3
778-83 ......................................................................................................... 3
784-801 ....................................................................................................... 3
817-18 ..................................................................................................... 2, 3
842 .............................................................................................................. 2
843-44 ......................................................................................................... 2
920 .............................................................................................................. 2

iii
 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

FRAZIER FOREMAN, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Vet. App. No. 10-0484
)
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, )
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, )
)
Appellee. )

ON APPEAL FROM THE

BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS

BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether the Court should vacate and remand the portion of the Board’s
November 17, 2009, decision which denied entitlement to service
connection for a bilateral foot disability, and affirm the portion of the
November 17, 2009, BVA decision, denying initial evaluations in excess of
10 percent for left leg and right leg radiculopathy.

1
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

The Court has jurisdiction over this appeal because the Court retains

exclusive jurisdiction to review final decisions of the BVA. 38 U.S.C.

§ 7252(a).

B. NATURE OF THE CASE

Frazier Foreman, hereinafter Appellant, appeals a decision of the

Board, dated November 17, 2009. In that decision, the Board denied

entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability, and denied

initial ratings in excess of 10 percent for left and right leg radiculopathy.

Record Before the Agency (RBA) at 3-17.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Appellant had active duty in the United States Army from August 18,

1970, to August 17, 1972. RBA at 920.

Appellant was assigned a 10 percent rating for lumbosacral strain,

effective August 18, 1972. RBA at 842. In a November 19, 2003, rating

decision, the VA Regional Office (RO) increased the rating for Appellant’s

service-connected lumbosacral strain from 10 percent to 20 percent,

effective June 3, 2003. RBA at 843-44.

In December 2003, Appellant filed a notice of disagreement (NOD)

to the rating assigned for the lumbosacral strain. RBA at 817-18. In the

same letter, Appellant filed a claim for service connection for a bilateral

2
foot disorder secondary to his service-connected back condition. RBA at

817-18.

In a March 29, 2004, statement of the case (SOC), the RO continued

the 20 percent rating assigned for the lumbosacral strain. RBA at 784-801.

The RO, in a March 29, 2004, rating decision, granted service connection

for right and left leg radiculopathy, rated as 10 percent disabling for each

leg, effective June 3, 2003. RBA at 773-76; 778-83.

In a letter received in April 2005, Appellant appealed the assigned

disability rating for the left and right radiculopathy. RBA at 672-73.

In a May 5, 2005, SOC, the RO continued the assigned ratings for

the left and right leg radiculopathy. RBA at 651-67. Appellant filed a June

2005 substantive appeal. RBA at 637. The VA RO issued a November

21, 2005, supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) regarding

Appellant’s increased rating claim for the right and left leg radiculopathy.

RBA at 624-26. Appellant filed a substantive appeal received in January

2006. RBA at 602-21.

In a May 23, 2006, rating decision, the RO denied entitlement to

service connection for a bilateral foot condition and continued the 10

percent ratings for left and right leg radiculopathy. RBA at 351-60.

Appellant filed a July 2006 NOD to this decision. RBA at 339-50. The VA

RO issued a September 21, 2006, SOC, affirming its previous denial of

entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder. RBA at 252-

3
82. Appellant filed an October 2006 substantive appeal. RBA at 226-51.

The VA RO issued an August 7, 2007, SSOC for the increased

rating claims for the left and right leg radiculopathy. RBA at 201-04. The

VA RO issued a September 26, 2007, SSOC, with respect to Appellant’s

claim for service connection for a bilateral foot disorder and entitlement to

initial ratings in excess of 10 percent for left and right leg radiculopathy.

RBA at 176-80.

In a February 4, 2008, decision, the Board remanded the claims of

entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder and initial

ratings in excess of 10 percent for left and right leg radiculopathy. RBA at

115-40.

In a November 2008 VA examination, the VA examiner noted that

Appellant had peripheral neuropathy. RBA at 41.

The VA RO issued an August 27, 2009, SSOC. RBA at 32-39. The

RO noted that Appellant had a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy. RBA at

37.

The BVA issued the decision on appeal on November 17, 2009.

RBA at 3-17. The Board denied entitlement to service connection for a

bilateral foot disability, and denied initial ratings in excess of 10 percent for

left and right leg radiculopathy. RBA at 2-17.

Appellant appealed that decision to this Court.

4
 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

On appeal, Appellant argues that remand is warranted for the Board

to provide adequate reasons or bases for denying entitlement to service

connection for a bilateral foot disorder. Appellant’s Brief (AB) at 7-10.

Appellant argues that remand is warranted because the Board failed to

discuss whether Appellant’s bilateral foot disorder encompassed peripheral

neuropathy and whether Appellant’s service-connected lumbar strain, left

leg radiculopathy, or right leg radiculopathy caused or aggravated

Appellant’s peripheral neuropathy and bilateral foot disability. AB at 11-12.

Finally, Appellant argues that remand is warranted for the Board to discuss

the Federal Circuit’s decision in Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313,

1316 (Fed.Cir. 2009).

The Secretary respectfully requests this Court to vacate and remand

the portion of the November 17, 2009, decision denying entitlement to

service connection for a bilateral foot disability for the Board to clarify if

Appellant’s service connection claim encompasses the disability of

peripheral neuropathy, or if Appellant has a separate pending claim for

entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy. With respect

to Appellant’s other assertions of error, the Secretary asserts that these

are reasons or bases errors that the Board can address upon remand.

The Secretary respectfully requests this Court to affirm the portion of

the November 17, 2009, decision denying entitlement to initial evaluations

5
in excess of 10 percent for left leg radiculopathy and 10 percent for right

leg radiculopathy. Appellant does not present any argument related to the

denial of initial ratings in excess of 10 percent for the left and right leg

radiculopathy.

ARGUMENT

A. THE COURT SHOULD REMAND APPELLANT’S CLAIM FOR

ENTITLEMENT TO SERVICE CONNECTION FOR A BILATERAL FOOT
DISORDER FOR THE BOARD TO CLARIFY THE NATURE OF THE
DISABILITY ON APPEAL.

On appeal, Appellant argues that remand is warranted for the Board

to provide adequate reasons or bases for its decisions. Appellant asserts

that the Board failed to consider if Appellant’s peripheral neuropathy is part

of his bilateral foot condition.

The Secretary concedes that the Board failed adequately to explain

whether Appellant’s claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral

foot disability encompasses the disability of peripheral neuropathy, or if

Appellant has a separate pending claim for entitlement to service

connection for peripheral neuropathy. It is well established that the

requirement of providing adequate reasons or bases for the decision

rendered is a statutory mandate that the BVA must adhere to in

adjudicating a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); Fenderson v. West,

12 Vet.App. 119, 127 (1999); see also Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517,

527 (1995). The Court stated in Fleshman v. Brown, that, “[t]he statement

6
must be adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis

for the Board’s decision, as well as to facilitate review by this Court.”

Fleshman v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 548, 552 (1996) (emphasis added.)

In this case, the August 27, 2009, SSOC discussed Appellant’s

diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy as part of its denial of Appellant’s claim

for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability. RBA at

37. However, the Board, in its decision, did not discuss Appellant’s

diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy of the feet as part of the claim for

entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability. RBA at 3-

15. It is unclear from the Board’s discussion whether Appellant’s

peripheral neuropathy disability is included in its denial of entitlement to

service connection for a bilateral foot disorder, or whether Appellant has a

separate pending appeal for entitlement to service connection for

peripheral neuropathy. Therefore, the Secretary agrees with Appellant that

remand is required for the Board to discuss Appellant’s diagnosis of

peripheral neuropathy and its relevance to his service connection claim.

The Board’s decision, in this regard, frustrates judicial review and does not

provide adequate explanation so that Appellant can understand the basis

of the decision. See Allday, supra.

Appellant also requests that his service connection claim be

remanded for the Board to discuss whether his service-connected

disabilities cause or aggravate Appellant’s peripheral neuropathy and

7
bilateral foot disability. AB at 11-12. He argues that the Board failed to

address aggravation pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. AB at 12. Appellant

also argues that the Board erred by not discussing the Federal Circuit’s

decision in Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed.Cir. 2009).

The Secretary asserts that these are reasons or bases errors best

addressed on remand. See Best v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 18, 20 (2001) (“A

narrow decision preserves for the appellant an opportunity to argue those

claimed errors before the Board at readjudication, and, of course, before

this Court in an appeal, should the Board rule against him.”). Moreover,

the Board must clarify what symptoms encompass Appellant’s bilateral foot

disorder, before it can undertake any discussion of aggravation.

The Secretary respectfully requests this Court to remand Appellant’s

claim for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder for

the Board to discuss whether peripheral neuropathy is part of Appellant’s

claim for service connection, or whether Appellant has a separate pending

appeal for peripheral neuropathy.

B. APPELLANT HAS ABANDONED ALL ISSUES NOT ARGUED IN HIS

BRIEF.

Finally, when an appellant limits his or her arguments or issues in

the opening brief, he or she has abandoned all other arguments or issues,

and it would be unnecessary for this Court to consider them at this time.

See Disabled American Veterans v. Gober, 234 F.3d 682, 688 n.3 (Fed.

8
Cir. 2000) (stating that the Court would “only address those challenges that

were briefed”). Specifically, Appellant presents no argument related to his

claims for initial ratings in excess of 10 percent for left and right leg

radiculopathy. The Secretary urges this Court to find that Appellant has

abandoned these issues and any other arguments not raised in his

opening brief. Id.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Appellee Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of

Veterans Affairs, asks the Court to vacate and remand the portion of the

November 17, 2009, decision denying entitlement to service connection for

a bilateral foot disorder and affirm the portion of the November 17, 2009,

BVA decision, denying initial ratings in excess of 10 percent for left and

right leg radiculopathy.

Respectfully submitted,

WILL A. GUNN
General Counsel

R. RANDALL CAMPBELL
Assistant General Counsel

9
 /s/ Gayle E. Strommen
GAYLE E. STROMMEN
Deputy Assistant General Counsel

/s/ Purnima G. Boominathan

PURNIMA G. BOOMINATHAN
Appellate Attorney
Office of the General Counsel (027E)
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20420
(202) 461-1356

Attorneys for the Appellee

Secretary for the Veterans Affairs

10