Procopio v. Wilkie

• Decision Date: 29 January 2019
• Docket Number: 2017-1821
• Citation: 913 F.3d 1371
• Parties: Alfred PROCOPIO, Jr., Claimant-Appellant v. Robert WILKIE, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

913 F.3d 1371

Alfred PROCOPIO, Jr., Claimant-Appellant

v.Robert WILKIE, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee

2017-1821

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: January 29, 2019

Melanie L. Bostwick, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, argued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by Thomas Mark Bondy, Robert Manhas; Matthew R. Shahabian, New York, NY; John B. Wells, Law Office of John B. Wells, Slidell, LA.

Eric Peter Bruskin, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by Joseph H. Hunt, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Martin F. Hockey, Jr. ; Brian D. Griffin, Brandon A. Jonas, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Catherine Emily Stetson, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Military Officers Association of America, AMVETS, Veterans and Military Law Section, Federal Bar Association. Also represented by William David Maxwell. Amicus curiae National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. also represented by Chris Attig, Attig Steel, PLLC, Little Rock, AR.

Kenneth M. Carpenter, Law Offices of Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, for amicus curiae Joseph A. Taina.

Glenn R. Bergmann, Bergmann Moore, LLC, Bethesda, MD, for amicus curiae The American Legion. Also represented by James Daniel Ridgway.

Angela K. Drake, The Veterans Clinic at The University of Missouri School of Law, Columbia, MO, for amicus curiae National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium.

Doris Hines, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Disabled American Veterans. Also represented by Charles Collins-Chase, Sean Damon, Ronald Lee Smith.

Stanley Joseph Panikowski, III, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, CA, for amici curiae Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association, Association of the United States Navy, Fleet Reserve Association. Also represented by Jacob Anderson, Erin Gibson.

Stephen Blake Kinnaird, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae National Veterans Legal Services Program, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Amicus curiae National Veterans Legal Services Program also represented by Barton F. Stichman, National Veterans Legal Services Program, Washington, DC.

Before Prost, Chief Judge, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, and Stoll, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge MOORE, in which Chief Judge Prost and Circuit Judges Newman, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, and Stoll join.

Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge Lourie.

Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge O’Malley.

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Chen, in which Circuit Judge Dyk joins.

Moore, Circuit Judge.

Alfred Procopio, Jr., appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying service connection for prostate cancer

and diabetes mellitus as a result of exposure to an herbicide agent, Agent Orange, during his Vietnam Warera service in the United States Navy. Because we hold that the unambiguous language of 38 U.S.C. § 1116 entitles Mr. Procopio to a presumption of service connection for his prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus, we reverse.

BACKGROUND

In 1991, Congress passed the Agent Orange Act, codified at 38 U.S.C. § 1116, granting a presumption of service connection for certain diseases to veterans who "served in the Republic of Vietnam":

[A] disease specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection becoming manifest as specified in that paragraph in a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975; and [B] each additional disease (if any) that (i) the Secretary determines in regulations prescribed under this section warrants a presumption of service-connection by reason of having positive association with exposure to an herbicide agent, and (ii) becomes manifest within the period (if any) prescribed in such regulations in a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, and while so serving was exposed to that herbicide agent, shall be considered to have been incurred in or aggravated by such service, notwithstanding that there is no record of evidence of such disease during the period of such service.

38 U.S.C. § 1116(a) (emphasis added). Under § 1116(f), such a veteran "shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to [the] herbicide agent ... unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service."

In 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued regulations pursuant to § 1116 that stated " ‘Service in the Republic of Vietnam’ includes service in the waters offshore and service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam." 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6) (1993) ("Regulation 307"). In 1997 in a General Counsel opinion about a different regulation, the government interpreted Regulation 307 as limiting service "in the Republic of Vietnam" to service in waters offshore the landmass of the Republic of Vietnam only if the service involved duty or visitation on the landmass, including the inland waterways of the Republic of Vietnam, ("foot-on-land" requirement). Gen. Counsel Prec. 27-97 (July 23, 1997); 62 Fed. Reg. 63,603, 63,604 (Dec. 1, 1997).

A panel of this court considered the government’s interpretation of § 1116 in Haas v. Peake , 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Mr. Haas had served in waters offshore the landmass of the Republic of Vietnam but was denied § 1116 ’s presumption of service connection because he could not meet the government’s foot-on-land requirement. Id. at 1173. Accordingly, we were asked to decide whether "serv[ice] in the Republic of Vietnam" in § 1116 required presence on the landmass or inland waterways of the Republic of Vietnam. Id. at 1172.

We applied the two-step framework of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 842–43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), to § 1116 and Regulation 307. At Chevron step one, the Haas court held that § 1116 was ambiguous as applied to veterans who, like Mr. Haas, served in the waters offshore the landmass of the Republic of Vietnam but did not meet the foot-on-land requirement. 525 F.3d at 1184. At Chevron step two, the Haas court held Regulation 307 was "a reasonable interpretation of the statute" but itself ambiguous. Id. at 1186. It then "[a]ppl[ied] the substantial deference that is due to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations" under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461–63, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997), to uphold the government’s interpretation of Regulation 307, i.e., the foot-on-land requirement. Id. at 1195. See also Haas v. Peake, 544 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Mr. Procopio served aboard the U.S.S. Intrepid from November 1964 to July 1967. In July 1966, the Intrepid was deployed in the waters offshore the landmass of the Republic of Vietnam, including its territorial sea.¹ Mr. Procopio sought entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus

in October 2006 and for prostate cancer in October 2007 but was denied service connection for both in April 2009. Diabetes mellitus is listed in the statute under paragraph (2) of § 1116(a), and prostate cancer is listed in the pertinent regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The Board of Veterans’ Appeals likewise denied him service connection in March 2011 and again in July 2015, finding "[t]he competent and credible evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran was present on the landmass or the inland waters of Vietnam during service and, therefore, he is not presumed to have been exposed to herbicides, including Agent Orange," under § 1116. The Veterans Court affirmed, determining it was bound by our decision in Haas . Mr. Procopio timely appealed.

A panel of this court heard oral argument on May 4, 2018, and on May 21, 2018, the parties were directed to file supplemental briefs on "the impact of the pro-claimant canon on step one of the Chevron analysis in this case, assuming that Haas v. Peake did not consider its impact." On August 16, 2018, the court sua sponte ordered the case be heard en banc. We asked the parties to address two issues:

Does the phrase "served in the Republic of Vietnam" in ... § 1116 unambiguously include service in offshore waters within the legally recognized territorial limits of the Republic of Vietnam, regardless of whether such service included presence on or within the landmass of the Republic of Vietnam?

What role, if any, does the pro-claimant canon play in this analysis?

In addition to the parties’ briefs, we received seven amicus briefs. The en banc court heard oral argument on December 7, 2018.

DISCUSSION

Section 1116 extends the presumption of service connection to veterans who "served in the Republic of Vietnam" during a specified period if they came down with certain diseases. At issue is whether Mr. Procopio, who served in the territorial sea of the "Republic of Vietnam" during the specified period, "served in the Republic of Vietnam" under § 1116.

Chevron sets forth a two-step framework for interpreting a statute, like § 1116, that is administered by an agency. 467 U.S. at 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778. Step one asks "whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue." Id. "If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter," and we "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Id. at 842–43, 104 S.Ct. 2778. If, on the other hand, "the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue," we...