## Facts

- James B. Criswell served on active duty from March 1944 to August 1945.
- On August 27, 1945, he filed a written application for disability compensation describing “Trenchfoot” and “exposure” with symptoms associated with his feet.
- VA awarded a temporary 50% rating for bilateral trenchfoot (rated as frozen feet).
- A February 1947 VA examination documented cold-weather residuals affecting the upper extremities (hands).
- In March 1947, VA ended the temporary rating and assigned 30% for service-connected bilateral trenchfoot effective February 25, 1947; it did not separately adjudicate a hand condition.
- On August 21, 1997, Criswell expressly sought service connection for frostbite residuals of his hands and an increased rating for his frozen feet.
- VA later granted service connection for cold-weather residuals of both hands, with staged ratings effective from August 21, 1997 (and separate ratings effective August 13, 1998).
- The Board denied an effective date earlier than August 21, 1997 for compensation based on cold-injury residuals of the hands (and the combined rating including hands and feet), finding no earlier claim for the hands.

## Issues

1. Whether a formal or informal claim for service connection for cold-injury residuals of the hands existed before August 21, 1997, permitting an earlier effective date.
2. Whether the 1945 application and/or the 1947 examination report reasonably raised a pending or implied claim for hand residuals that VA was required to adjudicate.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the Board’s denial of an effective date earlier than August 21, 1997.
- The Court held the Board did not clearly err in finding that no written communication before August 21, 1997 requested benefits for, or evidenced a belief in entitlement to benefits for, cold-injury residuals of the hands.
- The Court concluded that the February 1947 medical findings regarding the hands did not constitute a claim in the absence of expressed intent to seek benefits for that condition.
- The Court held that, because the first claim specifically seeking service connection for hand residuals was received on August 21, 1997, the effective date could not precede that date under governing effective-date law.
- A concurring judge stated that an argument that VA failed in 1947 to adjudicate an implied hand claim must be pursued through a clear-and-unmistakable-error challenge to the final 1947 decision, raised first within VA.

## Legal Principles

- A “claim” for VA benefits requires a written communication requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit; disability evidence alone is insufficient.
- Medical records documenting symptoms or diagnoses do not, without more, establish intent to apply for benefits for a specific condition.
- Effective dates for awards of compensation are generally the later of the date entitlement arose and the date VA received the application.
- Whether a particular writing constitutes a claim may involve factual determinations reviewed for clear error on appeal.
- If a claimant contends that a prior final decision failed to adjudicate an implied claim, the proper vehicle is a motion alleging clear and unmistakable error, presented to VA in the first instance.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of an earlier effective date because the record before August 21, 1997 contained no written expression of intent to seek benefits for hand cold-injury residuals, and medical evidence of hand symptoms did not itself create a claim; any allegation that the 1947 decision improperly omitted a hand claim must be raised as clear and unmistakable error.


Criswell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 501 (2006)