## Facts

- Robert Ingram, a Marine Corps veteran (1964–1968), underwent VA surgery in 1985 to remove his right lung.
- In 1986, he filed a VA application seeking total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU).
- The regional office (RO) denied the 1986 TDIU claim, and Ingram did not appeal.
- In 1992, Ingram filed a claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 based on alleged negligent VA medical care related to the lung surgery.
- VA ultimately granted § 1151 compensation effective in 1992.
- Ingram sought an earlier effective date, arguing his 1986 filing reasonably raised § 1151 entitlement for the same disability and that the theory remained unadjudicated (and therefore pending).

## Issues

1. Whether prior precedent (including Deshotel) created a broad “implicit denial” rule that would treat unmentioned, reasonably raised claims or theories as denied whenever VA adjudicates a related claim.
2. When a reasonably raised claim is considered finally adjudicated versus remaining pending for effective-date purposes.
3. How VA’s duty to sympathetically read a pro se veteran’s submissions affects identification and adjudication of claims not clearly labeled with legal terminology.
4. Whether failure to adjudicate a reasonably raised claim can constitute clear and unmistakable error (CUE), and under what limits.

## Decision

- The court held that Deshotel did not overrule the pending-claim doctrine and did not create a general doctrine of sub silentio denials that supplants it.
- The court ruled that a reasonably raised claim remains pending until either:
  - VA’s decision recognizes the substance of the claim in a manner sufficient for the claimant to deduce it was adjudicated, or
  - VA explicitly adjudicates a subsequent claim for the same disability.
- The court stated that, in an effective-date appeal, if there was no explicit denial of the original claim before a later grant for the same disability, the claimant may argue the earlier claim date controls.
- The court limited CUE based on nonadjudication: failure to adjudicate may support CUE only as to a final decision where the unadjudicated issue was relevant to a decision actually made.
- The court emphasized that sympathetic reading requires applying adjudicative expertise to recognize possible claims suggested by a pro se filing, without demanding legal sophistication from the claimant.

## Legal Principles

- A “deemed denied” determination requires a decision that addresses the claim in terms sufficient to put the claimant on notice it was considered and rejected; silence alone does not automatically deny a reasonably raised claim.
- A reasonably raised claim remains pending absent (1) recognition of its substance in a decision giving adequate notice of adjudication or (2) an explicit later adjudication of a claim for the same disability.
- Sympathetic reading requires evaluating a veteran’s submissions “in toto” to determine whether they articulate a claim, while not requiring the veteran to identify specific legal theories.
- Nonadjudication of a reasonably raised claim is generally remedied by recognizing and adjudicating the pending claim; it supports CUE only when tied to a final decision in which the issue was relevant to an adjudication actually made.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that unadjudicated, reasonably raised veterans’ claims do not become final by mere omission; they remain pending unless VA’s decision provided sufficient notice that the substance was adjudicated or VA later explicitly adjudicated the same disability, and sympathetic reading must identify claims suggested by pro se filings without requiring legal sophistication.


Ingram v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 232 (2007)