## Facts

- Two veterans, Angel Vazquez-Flores and Michael R. Schultz, sought increased disability ratings for service-connected conditions.
- Vazquez-Flores had a long-standing 30% rating for nephrolithiasis under Diagnostic Code (DC) 7508, which referenced other codes that could permit a higher evaluation; the VA regional office denied an increase.
- In each case, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed the denial and found VA’s notice obligations under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) satisfied.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held the VCAA notice provided for increased-rating claims was inadequate and remanded to the Board.
- The Veterans Court required notice to include, at a minimum, evidence of worsening and its effect on employment and daily life, and (when applicable) general notice of specific measurements or test results contained in the relevant diagnostic code.
- The Secretary appealed the remand orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the appeals were consolidated.

## Issues

1. Whether the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s remand orders despite their non-final nature.
2. Whether 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) requires VA, in increased-rating claims, to provide notice identifying specific disability-rating criteria (including diagnostic code measurements or test results) and to advise the claimant to submit evidence of effects on employment and daily life.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit held it had jurisdiction to review the remand orders because they announced a binding legal rule governing VCAA notice content.
- The Federal Circuit vacated the Veterans Court’s judgments.
- The Federal Circuit held the Veterans Court erred by requiring VCAA notice to include diagnostic-code-specific rating criteria and detailed measurement/test information.
- The cases were remanded for further proceedings under the correct legal standard, including consideration of adequacy and prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Under 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a), VA must provide notice of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate the claim, but the statute calls for generic notice rather than diagnostic-code-specific instruction.
- For increased-rating claims, § 5103(a) does not require pre-adjudicatory notice of the specific rating schedule criteria, including specific test results or measurements used to determine the percentage evaluation.
- Notice may properly inform claimants that evidence can include medical or lay evidence showing worsening; requiring a code-by-code explanation is not supported by § 5103(a).
- Prior decisions requiring notice that a disability rating and effective date may be assigned if benefits are awarded do not mandate notice of the precise schedular formula for rating.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit reviewed the Veterans Court’s remand orders and rejected a heightened VCAA notice rule for increased-rating claims, holding that § 5103(a) requires only generic notice of the evidence needed to substantiate the claim and does not require inclusion of diagnostic-code-specific rating criteria.


Vazquez-Flores v. Shinseki, 580 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2009)