Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

A veteran who served in the U.S. Navy sought service-connected disability benefits for several medical conditions, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and an enlarged prostate. He claimed that GERD and prostate issues were secondary to COPD, which he alleged was caused by exposure to lead paint during his military service. The veteran submitted medical articles and sworn statements supporting the connection between lead exposure and these conditions in February 2022 during an appeal for asthma and COPD. When he later appealed the denial of benefits for GERD and prostate conditions, he attached an addendum to his Notice of Disagreement (NOD) directing the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to consider the previously submitted evidence.After the regional office denied his claim, the veteran sought higher-level review, which was also denied. He then appealed to the Board, selecting an appeal track that allowed submission of additional evidence without a hearing. The Board denied his appeal, stating that no “new and relevant” evidence had been presented and refusing to consider the February 2022 evidence because it had been submitted before the NOD for the current claim. The Board reasoned that evidence must be submitted anew with each NOD to be considered. The veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which affirmed the Board’s decision, relying on Cook v. McDonough to hold that evidence submitted between the agency decision and the NOD was excluded from consideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo and held that the veteran satisfied the evidentiary submission requirement by clearly and timely referencing the prior submission in his NOD addendum. The court reversed the Veterans Court's decision, concluding that the Board must consider the evidence previously submitted and clearly incorporated by reference with the NOD. View "CASH v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

David Hamill served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 2009 to 2013 and was discharged under “Other Than Honorable” conditions. After his discharge, he sought disability compensation for PTSD and other conditions, but the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied his application in 2014, citing that his discharge status barred him from most benefits. He did not appeal. In 2017 and again in 2021, Hamill filed new claims for disability benefits, which the VA interpreted as attempts to reopen his character of discharge determination. The VA ultimately granted service connection for PTSD in 2021, but did not address his discharge status, leaving Hamill without an appealable decision on that issue. Hamill’s attorney later requested an adjudication of his discharge characterization, but the VA replied that he should seek a change through the Service Department.Hamill then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for a writ of mandamus to compel the VA to adjudicate his character of discharge claim. The Secretary moved to dismiss the petition as moot after the VA sent a letter in February 2023 explicitly finding no new and material evidence to reopen the discharge determination. Hamill also requested class certification, arguing the petition was not moot due to certain exceptions. A divided panel of the Veterans Court dismissed Hamill’s petition, concluding it was moot based on the implicit denial doctrine, which held that the 2021 VA decision implicitly denied his claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and held that under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), the VA can no longer implicitly deny claims; decisions must explicitly identify adjudicated issues. The court vacated the Veterans Court’s order dismissing Hamill’s petition and remanded the case for further proceedings, including consideration of mootness exceptions. Costs were awarded to Hamill. View "HAMILL v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

A veteran sought compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for a neck injury, initially filing his claim in 2007. The VA denied the claim, and in 2008, the veteran, with the help of a non-attorney representative, filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) to appeal the denial. In 2012, the veteran retained an attorney, who entered into a contingency fee agreement and subsequently filed an additional claim on the veteran’s behalf for service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The attorney also submitted new evidence and arguments to support both the neck injury claim and a claim for total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU), referencing both the neck injury and PTSD.The Board of Veterans’ Appeals later found the neck injury was service connected and remanded the neck claim to the VA Regional Office for a rating decision, while referring the TDIU claim to the Regional Office, as it had not been addressed previously. The Regional Office ultimately granted past-due benefits for the neck injury, PTSD, and TDIU, but awarded attorney’s fees to the attorney only for the portion of benefits related to the neck injury—finding that the PTSD claim was not part of the appealed case under the relevant statute. The Board affirmed this determination, and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims also affirmed, concluding that the PTSD claim was not connected to the original NOD regarding the neck injury.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, under 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1) (2012), attorney’s fees may only be paid for services provided after an NOD is filed, and only for the “case” addressed by that NOD. The court affirmed that the PTSD claim was not part of the same case as the neck injury claim appealed in the 2008 NOD, and therefore attorney’s fees were not authorized for services related to the PTSD claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Veterans Court. View "HOLSTEIN v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

A veteran who suffered a traumatic brain injury from an improvised explosive device while deployed sought financial assistance under the Traumatic Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) program after experiencing a stroke within two years of the injury. The Army denied his claim, determining the stroke was a physical illness or disease, not a qualifying traumatic injury as defined by the relevant statute and regulations. The veteran then petitioned the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to amend its rules to include coverage for illnesses or diseases caused by explosive ordnance, arguing these conditions are analogous to those already covered under existing exceptions for injuries resulting from chemical, biological, or radiological weapons.The VA initially denied the rulemaking petition but agreed to further review as part of a program-wide assessment. After several years, extensive consultation with medical experts, and consideration of the petition and supporting materials, the VA issued a final denial. It concluded that expanding coverage to delayed illnesses or diseases linked to explosive ordnance would be inconsistent with TSGLI’s purpose, which focuses on immediate injuries, would deviate from the insurance model underlying the program, and could threaten its financial stability. The VA also found insufficient evidence of a direct causal relationship between explosive ordnance, traumatic brain injury, and downstream illnesses like stroke.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the VA’s denial under the highly deferential “arbitrary and capricious” standard of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court held that the VA provided a reasoned explanation addressing the petitioner’s arguments and the record, and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. The petition for review was therefore denied. View "MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS " on Justia Law

James Young, a veteran who served in the military during the mid-1980s, initially filed a claim for service-connected disability benefits in 1988, alleging head injuries from an in-service car accident. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office denied his claim in 1991, and after several years of proceedings, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied the claim in 1999, citing Young’s failure to appear for scheduled medical examinations. Young did not appeal the Board’s 1999 denial. Years later, in 2017, following a new claim and medical examinations, the VA granted service connection for his head injuries effective August 17, 2012.Seeking an earlier effective date linked to his original 1988 claim, Young filed a motion in 2022 with the Board to vacate its 1999 denial, alleging due process violations because the Board had failed to ensure the regional office complied with orders to search for certain records. The Board denied the motion, characterizing the alleged error as a “duty to assist error” rather than a due process error. Young appealed this denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which dismissed the appeal. The Veterans Court found that while the appeal was timely regarding the denial of the motion to vacate, such a denial was not an appealable decision under its jurisdictional statute.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court’s dismissal. The Federal Circuit held that the Board’s denial of a motion to vacate under 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000(a), when based solely on alleged material error known at the time of the original decision, does not constitute an appealable “decision” under 38 U.S.C. § 7252. The court determined that allowing appeals from such procedural denials would undermine the statutory time bar and permit indefinite judicial review of Board decisions. View "YOUNG v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

The appellant, a Navy veteran who served as a flight deck signalman from 1984 to 1988, filed claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 2009 seeking service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The VA regional office denied both claims in 2010. Upon appeal, a VA medical examination in 2011 found the appellant’s hearing to be within normal limits during service and opined that his tinnitus was likely associated with hearing loss, but did not address whether the tinnitus itself was service connected. The regional office again denied both claims in 2012.In 2017, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals granted service connection for tinnitus, finding the veteran credible in reporting symptoms since service, and remanded the hearing loss claim for further medical opinion. After additional examinations, the Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss in 2021, with no discussion of whether the hearing loss could be connected to the now service-connected tinnitus. The appellant appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that the Board erred by not discussing secondary service connection for hearing loss. That court affirmed the Board, finding no clear error in denying direct service connection for hearing loss and concluding that the record did not reasonably raise the theory of secondary service connection.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that to establish secondary service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a), a veteran must show a causal link between the secondary condition and an underlying primary condition for which service connection was granted, not merely a direct link to an in-service event. The Federal Circuit found no error in the Veterans Court’s interpretation of the regulation or its treatment of the facts and affirmed the decision. View "GOLDEN v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

In 1995, a military veteran was convicted of assaulting and causing the death of his four-month-old daughter, resulting in a 15-years-to-life sentence for a violation of California Penal Code section 273ab. This was his first and only felony conviction, although he had a prior record of mostly DUI offenses. Nearly three decades later, in 2024, he petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.91, arguing that military service-related conditions—specifically traumatic brain injury and substance abuse—were not considered as mitigating factors at his original sentencing.The Superior Court of Solano County initially denied his habeas corpus petition, noting that relief was available through section 1170.91 and instructing him to file a separate resentencing petition. When he subsequently filed a formal resentencing petition under section 1170.91, the trial court summarily denied it without a hearing, stating he had failed to make a prima facie case for relief. The defendant appealed, asserting he was entitled to a public hearing on his petition and that his military-related conditions should have been considered.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that, even assuming the petition was sufficient to require a public hearing, any procedural error was harmless because the defendant was statutorily ineligible for resentencing. The court concluded that under section 1170.91, subdivision (c), individuals convicted of offenses listed as “super strikes” under section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv)—which includes the defendant’s conviction—are categorically excluded from resentencing relief. The court affirmed the denial of the petition, holding that the statutory exclusion applies regardless of whether the conviction was a first offense or resulted from the Three Strikes law. View "P. v. Harrison" on Justia Law

The claimant served in the U.S. Navy and, upon his voluntary separation in 1992, received a lump sum Special Separation Benefit (SSB) under 10 U.S.C. § 1174a. Many years later, in 2017, he was awarded VA disability compensation with entitlement to a total disability rating, effective from late 2016. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) notified him that it would withhold a portion of his monthly disability benefits to recoup the SSB payment, which the claimant contested, arguing that SSB payments are not subject to recoupment and that the relevant statutory authority did not apply to his situation.The Board of Veterans’ Appeals found that the VA acted properly in withholding his disability compensation to recoup the SSB payment. The claimant then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which affirmed the Board’s decision. He sought reconsideration, asserting that the court had relied upon the wrong statutory provision. The Veterans Court granted reconsideration, but in its new decision, it again held that the relevant statute required recoupment of his SSB payment from his VA disability compensation, and affirmed the Board’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo. The court held that 10 U.S.C. § 1174(h)(2) applies to SSB payments received under 10 U.S.C. § 1174a, requiring such payments to be deducted from VA disability compensation. The court rejected the claimant’s alternative statutory interpretation, finding it inconsistent with the statutory text and structure. The court also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction arguments that were not addressed by the Veterans Court. The judgment was affirmed in part and dismissed in part. View "COLAGE v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence in Riverside County, California, and sought pretrial military diversion under Penal Code section 1001.80. He had served five months of active duty in the United States Marine Corps and several years in the reserves. The trial court denied his request, finding him ineligible because he had not completed at least one year of active service or one day of combat, relying on a local Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and its interpretation of legislative intent.The defendant petitioned for a writ of mandate in the Appellate Division of the Riverside County Superior Court. The People conceded that Penal Code section 1001.80 does not require a minimum of one year of service. The Appellate Division agreed, holding that the statute contains no such time requirement and remanded for the trial court to reconsider eligibility. The Appellate Division also clarified that, even if eligible, a defendant is not automatically entitled to diversion; the trial court retains discretion to assess suitability for diversion, guided by the statute’s rehabilitative purpose.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, then transferred the case for review. The court held that Penal Code section 1001.80 does not impose a minimum service duration for eligibility for military diversion, and the MOU’s one-year requirement does not apply to diversion under this statute. The court further held that trial courts must first determine eligibility under the statute and then exercise discretion to assess suitability for diversion, considering factors consistent with the statute’s rehabilitative goals. The court issued a writ directing the superior court to vacate its denial and conduct further proceedings consistent with these principles. View "Angulo v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Two former Army members, Aaron Wilson and Sean Dillon, were convicted by court-martial for sex crimes committed during their active-duty service. Both had been medically retired from the Army due to disabilities—Wilson in 2012 and Dillon in 2015. After their retirements, each was charged and convicted by court-martial for offenses that occurred while they were on active duty. Both challenged the court-martial’s jurisdiction, arguing that as medically retired servicemembers, they were no longer part of the “land and naval Forces” under the Constitution and thus could not be subjected to military jurisdiction.Wilson and Dillon appealed their convictions through the military justice system. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both convictions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied discretionary review. After exhausting military appeals, both petitioners filed for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, arguing that the statutory grant of military jurisdiction over medically retired personnel exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority. The district court denied both petitions, holding that military retirees maintain a formal relationship with the armed forces and remain subject to recall, distinguishing them from separated servicemembers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of habeas relief de novo. The Tenth Circuit held that medically retired servicemembers retain military status because they hold rank, receive pay, may wear the uniform, and are subject to recall. Therefore, they are part of the “land and naval Forces” under Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 of the Constitution. The court concluded that Congress’s statutory grant of court-martial jurisdiction over such retirees is constitutional and affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Wilson v. Curtis" on Justia Law