## Facts

- A World War II veteran received VA service connection and a 50% disability rating for a left-leg injury and varicosities of both legs.
- He died in 1999 from congestive heart failure due to coronary artery disease.
- His widow sought dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), alleging his service-connected vein condition prevented bypass surgery and contributed to death.
- A VA regional office denied the claim for lack of medical nexus evidence linking the service-connected disability to the death.
- After enactment of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), the Board remanded for readjudication under the VCAA’s notice and duty-to-assist requirements.
- On readjudication, the regional office sent a post-remand notice letter and again denied the claim.
- The Board affirmed the denial, concluding VCAA notice was satisfied based on various communications other than the post-remand letter (e.g., rating decisions and statements of the case).
- The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed, but on a different ground: it found the post-remand letter satisfied VCAA notice, despite the Board not relying on it.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims may affirm a Board decision on VCAA-notice grounds based on a VA communication the Board did not rely on, thereby substituting a different factual basis for affirmance.
2. Under 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a), which VA communications may satisfy VCAA notice, and who must determine in the first instance whether the notice requirement was met.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the Veterans Court’s judgment and remanded.
- It held the Veterans Court acted improperly by affirming based on its own analysis of a communication not relied on by the Board.
- The Federal Circuit did not finally decide whether VCAA notice was adequate; it required that the notice determination be addressed through the proper agency fact-finding and review sequence.

## Legal Principles

- The Veterans Court reviews Board decisions and generally may not affirm on an alternative factual basis that the Board did not adopt when doing so would require independent fact-finding or a new theory of compliance.
- The Board is the primary fact-finder in the veterans benefits adjudication system; the Veterans Court’s role is appellate review of the Board’s stated grounds.
- For claims governed by the VCAA, 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) requires notice of (1) information and evidence needed to substantiate the claim, (2) what VA will obtain, and (3) what the claimant must provide.
- When multiple communications are asserted to satisfy § 5103(a), the Board must identify and explain which communications it relies on to find the notice requirement satisfied.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit required strict adherence to the division of responsibilities between the Board and the Veterans Court, holding that affirmance cannot rest on a VCAA-notice rationale and factual predicate not relied upon by the Board, and it remanded for proper consideration consistent with that review structure.


Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006)