## Facts

- Jack W. Morton served in the U.S. Army from 1943 to 1946.
- He later sought VA service connection for hearing loss, varicose veins, a back disorder (other than scoliosis), and an upper-extremity length discrepancy.
- VA denied the claims; Morton appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA).
- The BVA found the claims lacked supporting evidence and denied them as not well grounded under 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a).
- Before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), Morton did not argue the claims were well grounded; he argued VA still had to assist him in developing evidence based on statutes, regulations, and internal guidance.
- After the 1999 merits decision, Morton died while further review was pending; the CAVC later withdrew its 1999 opinion, vacated the BVA decision, and dismissed the appeal as moot.

## Issues

1. Whether 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a) imposes a duty on VA to assist a claimant in developing evidence before the claimant submits a well-grounded claim.
2. Whether VA regulations, manuals, or policy statements can require pre–well-grounded-claim assistance contrary to § 5107(a).

## Decision

- The CAVC affirmed the BVA’s denial in the 1999 decision.
- The court held VA’s duty to assist does not arise unless and until the claimant submits a well-grounded claim.
- The court rejected the argument that agency manuals or policy materials could create a duty to assist beyond statutory limits.
- In later proceedings after the claimant’s death, the CAVC withdrew the 1999 opinion, vacated the BVA decision, and dismissed the appeal as moot.

## Legal Principles

- Under 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a) (as then interpreted), the claimant bears the initial burden to submit evidence sufficient to render a claim well grounded.
- VA’s duty to assist is conditioned on the prior submission of a well-grounded claim; absent such a showing, VA may not be required to develop evidence for the claimant.
- Agency manuals, policy statements, and related guidance cannot enlarge VA’s assistance obligations beyond what the statute permits as construed by controlling judicial authority.
- When a case becomes moot on appeal through circumstances not attributable to the appellant, an appellate court may withdraw its opinion and consider vacatur of underlying decisions as part of the mootness disposition.

## Conclusion

Morton held that, under § 5107(a) as it was then applied, VA had no duty to assist in developing a claim until the claimant first presented a well-grounded claim, and that internal agency guidance could not override that statutory condition; the opinion was later withdrawn and the underlying BVA decision vacated after the claimant’s death mooted the appeal.


Morton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 477 (1999)