Mattox: AMA v. Legacy and the Related Notice Requirements

Mattox v. McDonough, Opinion Number 19-5212, was decided April 26, 2021 and involves a narrow question regarding whether a claim is subject to the Legacy appeal system or falls under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA)..

In August 2017, Congress enacted the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (AMA).  AMA amended and created some notice requirements and the question in this appeal was whether those notice requirements applied to an older, legacy claim.

The Court

h[e]ld that, under the plain language of the AMA read as a whole and VA's implementing regulations, the amended notice requirements in section 5104(b) do not apply to legacy appeals. And because appellant's administrative appeal is a legacy appeal, and he has not opted in to the AMA, the Board was under no obligation to comply with section 5104(b).

Id. at *2.

As background the veteran sought service connection for PTSD and submitted a DBQ completed by a private physician.  A VA examiner determined there was not PTSD, but just substance abuse disorders.  It did recognize his Vietnam related stressors.  The VA denied service connection.  The Board denied because the weight of the evidence does not show the veteran had PTSD.

First, the veteran’s counsel argued the Board failed to provide him proper notice pursuant to the AMA amended version of Section 5104(b), which requires

among other things, notice of favorable findings in "decisions by the Secretary." He asserts that though the statute was amended as part of the AMA, it applies to all decisions rendered after February 19, 2019, when the AMA went into effect, including "legacy" matters such as his appeal. Appellant further argues that this statutory provision applies to Board decisions, in addition to the decisions of ROs and other VA agencies of original jurisdiction.

Id. at *4.

Second, the veteran argued on the merits that the Board failed to consider whether he had engaged in combat and thus was entitled to a lower evidentiary standard and also falied to consider whether he should be provided special consideration for PTSD based on fear of hostile military or terrorist activity in service.  Id. at *4. 

As to the first, notice based argument, the Court found the veteran’s claim was a legacy appeal and was not subject to the AMA, therefore, the AMA notice requirements did not apply.  Id. at *6-7.   It explained:

although Congress created a new adjudicatory system in the AMA, it did not eliminate the then-existing system – the "legacy" system.34 Instead, Congress created a system in which some administrative appeals would be processed under the legacy system and others would be processed under the newly enacted AMA. 35 This concurrent system of adjudication is a centerpiece of Congress's design.

Id. at *7.

As to the second, merits based argument, the Court determined:

appellant's arguments concerning the merits of the Board's decision on appeal are unpersuasive. He has failed to show prejudicial error with respect to the Board's findings that he does not have a DSM-5 diagnosis of PTSD and that the VA examination of record was entitled to more probative weight than a DBQ from appellant's private doctor. Appellant also failed to relate his arguments about his in-service stressors and the combat presumption to the reason the Board denied his claim, namely a lack of a current diagnosis of PTSD.

Id. at *17-18.

Opinion by Judge Allen and joined by Judges Pietsch and Jaquith.

To know more about whether Thomas Andrews can help you, please visit my website.