Robert Look sought compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for left foot drop and related residuals he claimed were caused by VA laminectomy surgery in 1960. The Board denied the claim by relying on 38 C.F.R. § 3.358(c)(3), which required fault or accident, and by concluding the evidence did not establish entitlement. On appeal, the Court held that the regulation was invalid under Gardner because § 1151 requires only that additional disability result from VA hospitalization, medical or surgical treatment, or vocational rehabilitation, and does not require proof of VA negligence. The Court also reviewed the record as a whole and found the Board’s factual conclusion clearly erroneous in light of contemporaneous and later medical evidence linking the veteran’s foot drop to the surgery.

The Court further held that VA had failed for years to apply the correct statute to the veteran’s claim and that this misapplication amounted to clear and unmistakable error in the 1962 rating decision. Because the evidence established that the disability followed the surgery and no evidence showed preexisting foot drop, the Court reversed and remanded with instructions to award § 1151 benefits as if service connected and to assign the appropriate rating. The case is a significant early § 1151 decision because it confirms that fault is not part of the statutory test and illustrates when reversal, rather than remand, is appropriate.

Under 38 U.S.C. § 1151, a veteran is entitled to compensation for additional disability resulting from VA hospitalization or medical or surgical treatment without proof of VA fault; denial based on the invalid fault requirement of former 38 C.F.R. § 3.358(c)(3) is legal error.

Look is a strong authority for arguing that § 1151 claims must be decided under the statute alone, not on negligence principles. It is also useful where the record shows clear post-treatment additional disability and the agency repeatedly applied the wrong legal standard.

The decision helped cement Gardner’s application in the § 1151 context and demonstrates that a Board decision grounded in an invalid regulation can be reversed when the record overwhelmingly supports the claim. It also shows how longstanding agency misapplication can support a CUE-based remedy.

Applying a fault or negligence requirement to a § 1151 claim when the statute does not impose one.

A veteran develops a new neurological deficit immediately after VA surgery, and the Board denies § 1151 benefits because there was no showing of negligence. Look supports reversal if the record shows additional disability caused by the treatment.

Use this case to challenge any § 1151 denial that turns on VA fault, accident, or negligence, and to support a request for reversal where the record already establishes causation and additional disability. It is also useful when arguing that prior rating decisions misapplied § 1151 in a way that may constitute CUE.

Gardner v. Derwinski, Manio v. Derwinski, Oppenheimer v. Derwinski, Thompson v. Derwinski, Akins v. Derwinski, Bentley v. Derwinski, Karnas v. Derwinski