Solena Y. Hampton v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

The questions presented are twofold: When the VA fails to adjudicate the disposition of a claim for benefits, may a reviewing Court find that the VA meant to implicitly deny the claim, without running afoul of the Chenery Doctrine and further engaging in impermissible first-hand fact finding? And does the Federal Circuit’s use of the implicit denial rule undermine and contradict the VA’s statutory duty to provide a written statement of the reasons or bases for its findings and conclusions, that are adequate to enable an appellant to understand the precise basis for the Board’s decision, as well as to facilitate review in a higher Court? In 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) Congress authorized the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) to review decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the Court in making the decision. Congress specifically limited that review to exclude (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case in 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). This Court complemented the exclusions in 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1) with the Chenery Doctrine, which is a fundamental rule of administrative law that a reviewing court, “in dealing with a determination or