## Facts

- In 1952, a VA Regional Office (RO) denied James R. Cook’s claim for service-connected disability benefits.
- Cook later asserted the RO failed to satisfy the VA’s duty to assist by not providing an adequate medical examination before denying the claim.
- Decades later, Cook sought to collaterally attack the 1952 RO denial by alleging:
  - clear and unmistakable error (CUE) under 38 U.S.C. § 5109A based on the asserted duty-to-assist failure; and
  - alternatively, that the decision never became final because the asserted “grave procedural error” fit within a Hayre-based theory that could vitiate finality.
- The Board of Veterans’ Appeals rejected both theories, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed.
- After a Federal Circuit panel affirmed, the Federal Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacated the panel decision, and reconsidered the case.

## Issues

1. Whether an RO’s alleged breach of the VA’s duty to assist (failure to provide an adequate medical examination) can constitute CUE in a final RO decision under 38 U.S.C. § 5109A.
2. Whether alleged duty-to-assist failures create a “grave procedural error” that prevents a VA decision from becoming final.
3. Whether any Hayre-derived “grave procedural error” doctrine survives as a nonstatutory exception to finality.

## Decision

- The en banc Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court.
- The court held that a breach of the duty to assist cannot constitute CUE because it yields an incomplete record, not an undebatably incorrect adjudication on the record that existed.
- The court held that, absent specific statutory authorization, there is no “grave procedural error” exception to the rule of finality for VA decisions.
- The court rejected Cook’s reliance on Hayre to treat the 1952 decision as non-final and repudiated any broader reading of Hayre that created a freestanding, judge-made finality exception.
- The 1952 RO decision remained final; Cook’s collateral attack failed on both theories.

## Legal Principles

- CUE is a narrow form of collateral review limited to undebatable, outcome-determinative error based on the law and record as they existed at the time of the challenged decision.
- Duty-to-assist violations (including failure to obtain evidence or provide an adequate examination) do not constitute CUE because they concern evidentiary development and produce an incomplete record rather than an incorrect application of law to the established facts.
- VA decision finality is governed by statute; final decisions may be revisited only through statutorily authorized mechanisms (including reopening based on new and material evidence and revision based on CUE).
- Courts may not create nonstatutory exceptions to finality in VA adjudication; any exception must be grounded in explicit statutory authorization.
- Hayre cannot be used to support a general doctrine that “grave procedural error” vitiates finality for duty-to-assist failures.

## Conclusion

The en banc Federal Circuit held that alleged duty-to-assist failures cannot support CUE and do not prevent VA decisions from becoming final, limiting collateral review to statutory pathways and rejecting any broad, judge-made “grave procedural error” exception to finality.


Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc)