## Facts

- In 1971, Army veteran Roberto V. Ortiz filed a VA claim for a “nervous condition” and recurrent headaches.
- In 1972, the VA regional office (RO) denied service connection, characterizing the condition as a noncompensable “personality disorder”; Ortiz did not appeal, and the decision became final.
- In 1979, Ortiz sought to reopen the claim with a private psychiatric evaluation; the RO refused to reopen, and issued a statement of the case (SOC) listing a single issue: whether the evidence was sufficient to reopen the nervous-condition claim.
- In 1980, Ortiz wrote the VA about the status of his appeal for compensation for his nervous condition and asserted he had already submitted the substantive appeal form (VA Form 1-9), asking the VA to search its records and act on the appeal.
- The RO responded that no action would be taken unless Ortiz submitted Form 1-9 within 30 days; Ortiz did not send additional materials, and the matter was not forwarded to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.
- In 1994, Ortiz again sought to reopen; the RO granted service connection for bipolar disorder with an effective date tied to the 1994 reopening application.
- Ortiz challenged the effective date, arguing the 1979 reopening claim remained pending because his 1980 correspondence perfected an appeal that VA never processed.
- The Board rejected the earlier-effective-date request, finding no timely or valid substantive appeal; the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed on the ground that Ortiz’s letters lacked required specificity.
- Ortiz died during the Veterans Court proceedings and his widow, Carmen Rivera, was substituted; Rivera appealed to the Federal Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether Ortiz’s 1980 correspondence satisfied the statutory requirements for a “substantive appeal” under 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(3) despite the absence of a VA Form 1-9.
2. If a valid substantive appeal was filed, whether the 1979 reopening claim remained pending such that the effective date for the later service-connection award required reconsideration.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the Veterans Court.
- The court held the Veterans Court applied an overly strict standard for assessing the adequacy of a substantive appeal under § 7105(d)(3).
- The court concluded Ortiz’s 1980 letters, liberally construed, sufficiently identified the issue on appeal because the SOC listed only one issue.
- The court held a substantive appeal was not limited to submission of VA Form 1-9; correspondence containing the necessary information may qualify.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with treating the 1979 reopening claim as pending and reassessing the effective date.

## Legal Principles

- Substantive-appeal requirements under 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(3) must be applied with liberal construction in the pro-claimant, nonadversarial VA benefits system.
- When an SOC identifies a single issue, a claimant’s written expression of disagreement and desire to continue the appeal can satisfy the requirement that the substantive appeal relate to items in the SOC, even without detailed legal phrasing.
- A substantive appeal need not be on a particular VA form; written correspondence may suffice if it contains the information necessary to perfect the appeal.
- If an appeal is properly perfected and not resolved by the Board, the underlying claim may remain pending, which can affect the proper effective date of a later award.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that Ortiz’s 1980 letters constituted a valid substantive appeal under a liberal reading of § 7105(d)(3) because they necessarily addressed the single issue in the SOC, and that VA Form 1-9 was not the exclusive method to perfect an appeal; the case was remanded for effective-date reconsideration based on the continued pendency of the 1979 reopening claim.


Rivera v. Shinseki, 654 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011)