Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

Martin, an Army veteran, applied for educational-assistance benefits under 38 U.S.C. 3011. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied the application, concluding that Mr. Martin was ineligible for benefits because the basis for his honorable discharge in 1990 constituted “willful misconduct.” The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed. The officially declared reason for Martin’s discharge was “alcohol rehabilitation failure.” The Federal Circuit vacated, stating that “alcohol rehabilitation failure” cannot be said always to constitute or result from willful misconduct, regardless of circumstances. Neither the Board nor the Veterans Court made any determination of what particular conduct constituted misconduct, engaged in with the state of mind required for willfulness, that led to the rehabilitation-failure determination.View "Martin v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Mrs. Rusick is the surviving spouse of veteran George Rusick, who served on active duty in the U.S. military 1942-1943. In 1983, a Veterans Administration regional office issued a decision continuing a 30-percent rating for Rusick’s service-connected anxiety disorder. With a service-connected hearing loss rated at 40 percent, Rusick’s combined rating was 60 percent. In 1996, the regional office increased the rating for his anxiety disorder to 100 percent. Rusick died in April 2000, with no pending claims for benefits. In May 2000, Mrs. Rusick filed a claim seeking dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) and accrued benefits. The Department of Veterans Affairs denied both claims and she did not appeal. In September 2006, Mrs. Rusick filed another claim, asserting clear and unmistakable error in that Rusick should have received a 100 percent rating in 1983 because he was unemployable. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals agreed that the regional office’s failure to assign a 100 percent rating in 1983 constituted CUE and that Mrs. Rusick was entitled to DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1318. The regional office implemented the Board’s decision by awarding DIC, but it denied accrued benefits under 38 U.S.C. 5121. The Board, Veterans Court, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Rusick v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Robertson voluntarily enlisted in the Army in 1963.After serving confinement for being absent without leave on two occasions for a total of about 340 days, Robertson was discharged in 1967 under conditions other than honorable, a character of discharge that can foreclose the receipt of veterans’ benefits. He later participated in President Ford’s clemency program, completed alternative service, and received a presidential pardon and a new clemency discharge. Despite his pardon and clemency discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs has continued to deny Robertson’s claim for veterans’ benefits. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the Department of Veterans Affairs properly considered the misconduct underlying his pardoned offense to deny his application for benefits. Entitlement to veterans’ benefits under the clemency program was meant to be the exception, not the rule. View "Robertson v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Wilson served in the Navy 1986-1990 and again 1992-1994. He was given a 70% disability rating for several service-connected physical conditions. In 2001, Wilson was found guilty of attempted first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm and was sentenced to concurrent life terms. His convictions and sentences were affirmed. Wilson then pursued unsuccessful state and federal collateral attacks. For veterans who have service-connected disabilities rated at 20% or more and who are incarcerated for than 60 days for a felony,” 38 U.S.C. 5313(a)(1) requires reduction in compensation to the level of 10% disability, effective the 61st day of incarceration. The VA informed Wilson by letter that his rate of compensation would be reduced to 10%, effective back to December 20, 2001 and requested refund of overpayment of $15,464.50. The Regional Office Committee on Waivers and Compromises denied a waiver. Wilson was also denied a “total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities” (TDIU) rating on the basis that his unemployability was due to his incarceration The Board of Veterans’ Appeals applied the multi-factor test from 38 C.F.R. 1.965 to determine that recovery of the overpayment would not be against “equity and good conscience” and agreed that Wilson was not entitled to a TDIU rating. The Veterans Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit upheld the decision. View "Wilson v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Spicer served on active duty in the Navy from 1984 until 1987. In 1986, Spicer fractured his left little finger when a door closed on his hand while aboard ship. The fracture required surgery, which resulted in the finger joint fusing. In 2007, a VA examiner diagnosed Spicer as having degenerative arthritis of the distal interphalangeal joint in that finger. A VA regional office denied Spicer a compensable rating. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals found that although Spicer’s left finger disability was manifested by pain and limitation of motion, he failed to meet the criteria for a compensable evaluation for a left finger disability under either Diagnostic Code (DC) 5227 or 5230. The Veterans Court rejected Spicer’s argument that DC 5003 assigns a 10% rating for either a single affected major joint or a group of affected minor joints and that 38 C.F.R. 4.45(f) does not mandate that multiple minor joints be involved. The Veterans Court stated that “the DIP joint is not a major joint or minor joint group for the purpose of rating disabilities from arthritis.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Spicer v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Gilbert served in the Navy. His reported medical history upon entry into service revealed no psychiatric defects. After leaving service, Gilbert was diagnosed with major depression and required treatment for psychiatric illness and alcohol dependence. Gilbert acknowledged that he experienced depressive episodes and suicidal ideation throughout his life, that he has been abusing drugs and alcohol since he was a teenager, and that he continued to abuse alcohol while in the Navy. Gilbert sought compensation for psychiatric disability and other conditions with the VA. Multiple psychiatric examinations produced conflicting opinions. The VA denied service connection; the Board affirmed. The statutory “[p]resumption of sound condition” was applicable because no psychiatric condition was noted upon entry into service, 38 U.S.C. 1111; to rebut the presumption, the government had to provide clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrating that the disease existed before enrollment and was not aggravated by service. Based on Gilbert’s acknowledged history, the Board concluded that the government proved that his psychiatric illness pre-existed enrollment, but that the government failed to establish that Gilbert’s “pre-existing depression was not aggravated by active service,” and did not rebut the presumption of soundness. The Board nevertheless denied service connection, concluding that Gilbert failed to prove that his post-service psychiatric conditions “were correlated to [his] military experiences.” The Veterans Court and Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Gilbert v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Checo sought an increased disability rating for lumbosacral spinal stenosis, including disk bulges, which was rated at a 20% disability. On July 6, 2011, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied her request. Checo was homeless, residing in shelters and temporary housing without the ability to receive mail. On September 27, 2011, she contacted the VA to provide a new address, and received a copy of the adverse decision on October 6, 2011; 91 days of the 120-day filing period under 38 U.S.C. 7266 had passed. On December 7, 2011, Checo filed a Notice of Appeal, 33 days late. She wrote: “Due to economic hardship, I’ve been homeless for extensive periods of time since July 2009 … and did not learn about the hearing and subsequent decision until” October 2011. The Clerk of the Veterans Court ordered the Secretary to file a response discussing whether the circumstances warranted equitable tolling of the judicial appeal period. In its response, the Secretary noted that “it appears that [Ms. Checo’s] homelessness was due to circumstances beyond her control” and that homelessness “would have delayed her filing of her NOA.” After the Veterans Court accepted the Secretary’s concession that Checo’s homelessness qualified as an extraordinary circumstance, it dismissed, finding that Checo failed to prove two other necessary elements, due diligence and direct causation,—to warrant equitable tolling. The Federal Circuit vacated. The Veterans Court used an inappropriate due diligence standard and erred in determining that homelessness did not cause the delay.View "Checo v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Bowers served in the Army National Guard 1972-1978, with a continuous period of active duty for training from August 1972 to February 1973. His records do not reflect that he incurred any injury or disease during service. In 2009, shortly after his diagnosis with Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), Bowers sought benefits for ALS and secondary conditions. A VA Regional Office denied the claim, finding that his ALS was not incurred or aggravated in service. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals rejected his argument that he was entitled to presumptive service connection for ALS under 38 C.F.R. 3.318, noting that reserve duty and active duty for training of the type Bowers performed does not generally entitle an individual to evidentiary presumptions. While his appeal to the Veterans Court was pending, Bowers died and his wife was substituted as the appellant. The Veterans Court affirmed, finding that Bowers did not achieve “veteran status,” and was not entitled to presumptive service connection. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Bowers v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Larson, a Vietnam War veteran, suffered a gunshot wound in service. In 1969, he was granted a 40 percent combined disability rating. He did not appeal. In 2007, he claimed clear and unmistakable error (CUE), arguing misapplication of diagnostic codes in effect in 1969. The Regional Office denied his claim. The Board affirmed, stating: “the Veteran has not demonstrated that the law in effect during that time was incorrectly applied or that the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicators.” The Veterans Court rejected his challenges on the merits and a motion to modify the decision by deleting the phrase “or that the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicators.” Larson was concerned that the language could be interpreted as a ruling on a “correct facts” CUE claim, precluding him from raising such a claim in the future. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Veterans Court erred in holding that there is only one opportunity to raise any allegation of CUE for each claim decided by the Board. Under 38 C.F.R. 3.105(a) a veteran may raise a new argument that a RO committed CUE at any time. Larson only challenged the legal basis for the 1969 determination, and did not assert that the adjudicators did not have the correct facts before them; he remains free to raise a “correct facts” CUE claim, so his request for clarification of the Board’s decision was not moot. View "Larson v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

When an attorney successfully represents a veteran, the Veterans Administration may directly pay reasonable legal fees to the attorney from any past-due benefits awarded to the veteran, 38 U.S.C. 5904(d). For most types of claims, an attorney has one year to challenge denial of direct pay, 38 U.S.C. 7105, but for “simultaneously contested claims,” the period is 60 days, 38 U.S.C. 7105A. A regional office applied the 60-day period to reject a challenge filed by an attorney 90 days after written denial of his direct-fee request, based on its award to the veteran on a claim other than the claim for which the attorney represented the veteran. Because the statute does not define the term, the VA relied on 38 C.F.R. 20.3(p), which explains that simultaneously contested claim refers to the "situation in which the allowance of one claim results in the disallowance of another claim involving the same benefit or the allowance of one claim results in the payment of a lesser benefit to another claimant” and its Claim Adjudication Manual’s guidance that a denial of an attorney fee request should be treated as a simultaneously contested claim. The Board of Veterans Appeals, the Veterans Court, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Mason v. Shinseki" on Justia Law