Sellers v. Wilkie
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
965 F.3d 1328 (2020)

- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
Robert M. Sellers (plaintiff) served in the US Navy and the US Army. In 1996, Sellers filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (defendant) for service-connected disability. The claim specifically described leg, knee, back, finger, and ear injuries. Sellers was granted service connection. While evaluating the claim, the VA obtained Seller’s medical records, which also contained information about Seller’s treatment for a psychological condition. In 2009, Sellers submitted an informal claim and was granted service-connected disability for major depressive disorder (MDD) with an effective date of 2009. Sellers appealed the effective date, claiming it should be dated back to the original application in 1996 because that filing was labeled as a request for service connection for “disabilities occurring during active duty service,” which, along with the medical records that the VA had obtained, implicitly included MDD. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veteran’s Court) found in favor of Sellers, holding that a general statement of a veteran’s intent to seek benefits for unspecified disabilities might constitute a formal claim if a compensable condition is reasonably identifiable from the veteran’s medical-records claim record. The VA appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clevenger, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.