Skoczen v. Shinseki — claimant must present and support a plausible claim under § 5107(a)

Henry J. Skoczen, a World War II veteran, sought a rating higher than 70 percent for service-connected PTSD. The Board found that the record supported a 70 percent rating but not a 100 percent rating, and the Veterans Court affirmed. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Skoczen argued that the VCAA eliminated any claimant burden of proof and required VA to affirmatively prove that the criteria for a 100 percent rating had not been met.

The Federal Circuit rejected that reading of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a). The court interpreted the phrase “present and support” to mean that a claimant must provide some evidentiary basis for the claim, even though VA has a separate statutory duty to assist in obtaining evidence under § 5103A. The court explained that the veterans’ benefits system remains nonadversarial, but that does not eliminate the claimant’s responsibility to support a plausible claim. The court also discussed the statutory notice scheme and several Title 38 provisions that assume claimants sometimes must provide evidence, including private medical records or other proof of eligibility.

The court affirmed, concluding that neither VA nor the Veterans Court misread § 5107(a). The practical effect is to confirm that the VCAA did not shift all evidentiary responsibility to VA; instead, once a claimant crosses the threshold of a plausible claim, VA must assist, but the claimant still must support the claim with some evidence.

Section 5107(a) requires a claimant to present and support a benefits claim with some evidentiary basis; the VCAA did not eliminate claimant evidentiary responsibility, even though VA must assist under § 5103A.

A veteran cannot rely on a bare allegation alone to obtain benefits. Counsel should submit enough evidence to make the claim plausible and separately enforce VA’s duty to assist when the record is incomplete.

This decision is a key Federal Circuit interpretation of the post-VCAA claims framework. It helps define the balance between claimant submission obligations and VA’s duty to assist, which matters in nearly every benefits appeal.

Treating a claim as supported without enough claimant evidence or assuming VA must prove entitlement without any evidentiary showing from the veteran.

A veteran files for an increased PTSD rating but submits no treatment records, lay statements, or other evidence showing greater impairment. VA may deny the claim if the record contains no evidentiary basis for the higher rating, even though VA still must assist once the claim is plausible.

Use this case to argue that the claimant’s initial burden is only to present and support a plausible claim, not to prove entitlement beyond doubt. At the same time, use it to distinguish situations where VA failed to obtain evidence it reasonably should have sought.

Ortiz v. Principi, Gilbert v. Derwinski, Wood v. Peake, Cromer v. Nicholson, Barrett v. Nicholson