Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

Stallworth served in the U.S. Army, 1974-1975, during which time he experienced a psychotic episode that was attributed to his illicit use of the drug LSD. He recovered with hospitalization, but relapsed following return to active duty and was diagnosed with acute paranoid schizophrenia. A treating physician noted that it was not clear whether Stallworth’s illness was caused by his drug use or by independent psychosis. An Army medical board found him unfit for further military duty. Weeks later, a VA Regional Office awarded Stallworth service connection for schizophrenia at a 50% disability rating. Thereafter, Stallworth was often admitted to inpatient psychiatric facilities where medical professionals repeatedly opined that he had “no mental disorder” and that Stallworth’s service connection diagnosis was in error. The VA severed Stallworth’s service connection on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) and declined to reopen his claim because of a lack of new evidence. In 1981, the Appeals Board affirmed. The Veterans Court and Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Stallworth v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Dixon served in the Army, 1979-1992, including as a chemical operations specialist in the Persian Gulf, where he was exposed to pyridostigmine and “encountered smoke from oil fires, diesel, and burning trash,” and had “cutaneous exposure [to] diesel and petrochemical fuel.” In 2003, Dixon was diagnosed with sarcoid lungs and transverse myelitis, which left him temporarily paralyzed from the waist down. He sought service-connected disability benefits. In 2004 a VA regional office denied Dixon’s claim. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed, Dixon filed a pro se notice of appeal, 60 days after the 120-day filing deadline, 38 U.S.C. 7266(a). The Veterans Court dismissed, concluding that it was “without jurisdiction.” In 2011 the Supreme Court held that the filing deadline is not jurisdictional. The Veterans Court issued an order allowing Dixon and others to move to recall the dismissals. Still acting pro se, Dixon sought equitable tolling, explaining that he suffered from physical and psychiatric disabilities that prevented him from filing in a timely manner, accompanied by a statement from his psychiatrist. The Veterans Court denied Dixon’s motion. Attorneys subsequently agreed to represent Dixon. The Veterans Court allowed until October 4, 2012 to move for reconsideration. The VA refused to provide a copy of the file and the earliest available appointment for reviewing the file was October 1. On that dated, VA staff monitored the review and declined requests for copies of documents. The Federal Circuit reversed the denial of an extension, stating that the disability compensation system is not meant as a trap for the unwary, or a stratagem to deny compensation to a veteran who has a valid claim.View "Dixon v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Crawford began working for the Department of the Army in 1986, with credit for military service. In 2006, when called to uniformed service, Crawford was an IT Specialist, GS-2210-11, in the Corps of Engineers. The Army subsequently outsourced many IT functions and abolished Crawford’s position, but formed a new organization, the Corps of Engineers Information Technology (ACE-IT). When Crawford completed uniformed service, the Army briefly returned him to an IT Specialist position, but reassigned him as Program Support Specialist, GS-0301-11. Crawford claimed violation of reemployment protections for those in uniformed service under 38 U.S.C. 4313(a)(2). The administrative judge ordered the Army to place Crawford in a position of “like status” to an IT Specialist. The Army later submitted notice that it was not able to find a position of “like status” and had requested the Office of Personnel Management’s placement assistance. Crawford sought enforcement with the Merit Systems Protection Board, claiming that the search for positions was limited to vacant positions. The AJ agreed. The Army then reassigned Crawford to a position as an IT Specialist within ACE-IT, with the same duty station, title, and grade as his old position. The Board concluded that the Agency was in compliance and dismissed Crawford’s appeal. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Crawford v. Dep't of the Army" on Justia Law

Hall entered active duty in the Army in 1990, but refused to go to basic training and asked to go home. He made threats and admitted to an arrest for carrying a gun. A psychiatric evaluation showed that Hall was believed to suffer from an “avoidant personality disorder” and he was discharged after 15 days in service. In 2006, Hall sought VA disability benefits, claiming that he suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of an in-service sexual assault perpetrated by a superior officer. The claim was denied because Hall was not regarded as credible and could not prove the assault. The Veterans Court and Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Hall v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Sneed is the surviving spouse of Reginald, who served on active duty 1964-1968 and suffered service-connected disabilities, including post-traumatic stress syndrome, post-concussion syndrome, degeneration of the vertebrae, narrowing of the spinal column, tinnitus, a perforated tympanic membrane, and scarring of the upper extremities. In 2001, Reginald fell and suffered a spinal cord contusion, rendering him a quadriplegic. In 2003, he was living in a nursing home for paralyzed veterans. There was a fire and all of the residents died of smoke inhalation. Sneed sought dependency and indemnity compensation, 38 U.S.C. 1310, alleging that her husband’s service-connected disabilities were a cause of his death. The VA denied the claim. The Board affirmed. Sneed’s notice of appeal was due by August 3, 2011. Sneed retained attorney Eagle, communicated with Eagle’s office “for a year or longer” and stated that “Eagle knew that there was a deadline.” On August 2, 2011 Sneed received a letter stating that Eagle would not represent Sneed in her appeal. Failing to find new counsel, Sneed filed notice of appeal on September 1, 2011, with a letter explaining her late filing. The Veterans Court dismissed the appeal as untimely. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that attorney abandonment can justify equitably tolling the deadline for filing an appeal. View "Sneed v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Prinkey served in the Army, 1969 to 1970, including time in Vietnam. He was diagnosed with diabetes in 1996. Diabetes mellitus type II is presumed to be service connected if the veteran was exposed to Agent Orange, 38 U.S.C. 1116(a)(2)(H) (2002). In 2003, the VA received Prinkey’s claim for benefits on account of his diabetes, asserting exposure to Agent Orange. The VA Regional Office grantedservice connection for diabetes, evaluated at 20%, and lesser rated service connection for other disabilities secondary to diabetes. Prinkey sought to reopen his claim. During reexamination, the VA concluded that his diabetes more likely than not resulted from the surgery that removed most of his pancreas following years of alcohol abuse, not from his exposure to Agent Orange. Ultimately the Board of Veterans’ Appeals sustained severance of service connection for diabetes and related disabilities and denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability. The Veterans Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Under 38 C.F.R. 3.105(d) “service connection will be severed only where evidence establishes that it is clearly and unmistakably erroneous; the VA may consider medical evidence and diagnoses that postdate the original award of service connection. View "Prinkey v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Parks served in Vietnam 1964-1966. Along with 6,000 other soldiers, Parks volunteered for “Project 112” and was intentionally exposed to chemical warfare agents. In 2000 and in 2002, Parks sought service connection for diabetes type II with peripheral neuropathy and heart disability. The Regional Office denied the claims. While appeal was pending, the government declassified details about chemicals used in Project 112. The Department of Defense reported that it did not know of any long-term effects caused by exposure to the chemicals, but the Veterans Health Administration required the VA to provide to Project 112 veterans “a thorough clinical evaluation,” enhanced access to the VA health care system, and free care for any illness possibly related to their participation” and 38 U.S.C. 1710(e)(1)(E) provides specific services for veterans who participated in Project 112. The VA sent Parks a letter identifying the chemicals to which he had been exposed and providing instructions on how to obtain additional medical examinations. Ultimately, the Veterans’ Court denied a service connection. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding reasoning that a nurse practitioner is able to provide a medical examination that meets the regulatory requirements of competent medical evidence and refusal to consider information found on the Internet.View "Parks v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Kyhn served in the U.S. Army 1945-1946. In 1998, he filed a claim for service-connected hearing loss, which was denied by the regional office. Kyhn submitted a Notice of Disagreement, with medical evidence from his private audiologist and asserted that he was seeking service connection for tinnitus. The RO granted service connection for hearing loss at a 50% rating, but denied service connection for tinnitus. Kyhn did not appeal. The decision became final. In 2004, Kyhn sought to reopen his tinnitus claim and presented another letter from his private audiologist. Although the RO declined to reopen the tinnitus claim, the Board found the private audiologist’s statement constituted new and material evidence and remanded. Kyhn failed to appear and the Board denied service connection, based on the evidence of record. The Veterans Court found the VA had a regular practice to provide veterans with notice of their VA examinations and applied the presumption of regularity to presume the VA had properly notified Kyhn in accordance with this practice and affirmed the denial. The Federal Circuit vacated because of the lower court’s reliance on affidavits that were not part of the record before the Board. View "Kyhn v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Geib, a World War II veteran, suffers from multiple disabilities connected to his combat service. He developed trenchfoot as a result of exposure to extreme cold weather conditions while stationed in Germany; an enemy artillery shell exploded close to Geib, causing hearing damage. The VA granted Geib disability benefits. He was assigned a 10% disability rating for trenchfoot when he was discharged in 1946. The VA increased the disability rating to 20% in 2003 to account for trenchfoot on his other foot. In 2005, Geib was assigned a 70% combined disability rating after he was diagnosed with service-connected bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. In 2007, Geib applied for total disability based on individual unemployability, stating that he had worked as a self-employed carpet consultant, 1984-1989, prior to becoming too disabled to work. The regional office denied the claim. On remand, following medical examinations, Geib’s combined disability rating increased to 90%. The Board determined that Geib was not entitled to total disability. The Veterans’ Court and Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Geib v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Sprinkle served in the U.S. Army, 1973-1974. While in the service, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and prescribed a high dose of Thorazine®. In 1990, Sprinkle was diagnosed with mitral valve prolapse and chorea, a movement disorder similar to benign familial myoclonus. He succeeded in establishing entitlement to disability compensation before the Social Security Administration, the VA Regional Office awarded. Sprinkle a non-service-connected pension on effective 1990. In 2001, he sought a service connection for mitral valve prolapse and myoclonus, claiming that he was incorrectly diagnosed with schizophrenia and that the high doses of Thorazine® worsened his mitral valve prolapse and caused his myoclonus.The Regional Office denied the application. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals agreed and the Veterans’ Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Sprinkle was not denied fair process as it related to responding to a medical exam ordered by the Board.View "Sprinkle v. Shinseki" on Justia Law