Saunders v. Wilkie
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
886 F.3d 1356 (2018)

- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
Melba Saunders (plaintiff) served in the Army on active duty from 1987 to 1994. In 1994, Saunders was diagnosed with patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) related to knee pain, and Saunders’s exit examination reported a history of a swollen knee. In 2008, Saunders filed a service-connected disability claim based on her knees, but the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) denied Saunders’s claim based on a lack of current medical evidence. Saunders filed a Notice of Disagreement and stated that Saunders still had knee pain and swelling related to the 1994 diagnosis. In 2011, a VA examiner diagnosed Saunders with bilateral knee pain as likely not caused by military service. The examiner determined that the knee pain caused Saunders to have limitations on walking and standing for more than a few minutes and sometimes need to use a cane. Saunders appealed her denied claim to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board) on the grounds that the knee pain had been linked to Saunders’s service. The board denied Saunders’s claim, stating that “pain” was insufficient pathology for a diagnosis and insufficient evidence that Saunders’s condition was related to active service. The board further concluded that Saunders failed to show the presence of a disability. Saunders appealed to the Veterans Court, which affirmed the board’s decision. Saunders appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the grounds that Saunders’s knee pain constituted a present disability.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Malley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.