Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

In 2013, while in the Navy, Appellee A.L. had intercourse with the adult victim when her ability to consent was impaired by alcohol. He was charged with sexual assault under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Appellee was tried by general court-martial, with a panel of service members acting as fact-finders. The panel returned a verdict of guilty. Appellee was sentenced to sixty days’ confinement, a reduction in rank, and a dishonorable discharge. He appealed to the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the conviction and sentence. After his discharge from the Navy, Appellee moved to Pennsylvania. He registered with the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) as a sex offender subject to registration under Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). The PSP determined Appellee’s crime triggered a Tier III registration obligation. Appellee appealed that designation, arguing PSP’s action was adjudicative and not merely ministerial. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed appeal in this matter to determine whether sexual assault as defined under the Uniform Code of Military Justice was comparable to sexual assault as defined under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code so as to make Appellee a lifetime SORNA registrant. The Supreme Court concluded the military statute under which Appellee was convicted effectively defined two crimes, and PSP lacked a valid foundation to discern which of the two formed the basis for the military panel’s finding of guilt. Therefore, Appellee’s court-martial conviction could not be the basis for his classification as a Tier III registrant. View "A. L. v. PA State Police" on Justia Law

On active Army duty in the 1970s, Kennedy fell from a lawnmower and injured his knee. Although no disability was noted at his discharge, Kennedy received service connection for his knee injury in 2000. He later received service connection for depression secondary to his knee injury. In 2005, Kennedy died; his death certificate listed “melanoma, metastatic” as the immediate cause of death and listed “other significant conditions contributing to death,” including diabetes, hypertension, and “depression disorder.” Mrs. Kennedy three times unsuccessfully sought Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), 38 C.F.R. 3.114. The VA found no evidence that Kennedy’s death was related to military service.In 2013, VA “Fast Letter 13-04, “Simplified Processing of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) Claims,” instructed personnel to grant “service connection for the cause of death when the death certificate shows that the service-connected disability is [a] . . . contributory cause of death.” In 2015, the VA granted Mrs. Kennedy DIC, effective July, 2015. The Board of Appeals denied her appeal of the effective date, explaining that Fast Letter 13-04 was a “change[] to VA procedural manuals and guidance provisions,” not a liberalizing law or liberalizing VA issue. The Veterans Court affirmed, reasoning that Fast Letter 13-04 does not constitute a VA issue approved by the Secretary because it does not bind the Agency. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Kennedy forfeited her argument that the Veterans Court erred in its interpretation of “VA issue.” View "Kennedy v. McDonough" on Justia Law

A former military prisoner violated a condition of his supervision. After being arrested and while being detained, he brought the current lawsuit claiming that the condition he violated was unconstitutional. He has been released, and his term of supervision has ended. He has been denied all veterans’ benefits due to the violation. The court addressed whether the denial of the benefits is a collateral consequence sufficient to avoid finding his claim to be moot now that he has completed his term of supervision.Plaintiff argues that his claims remain viable because of collateral consequences resulting from his alleged violation of the special condition. The Department of Veterans Affairs notified him that his benefits were terminated because he was a “fugitive felon”. The VA stated to Plaintiff that he would have to provide evidence showing that he was not a fugitive felon to resume his benefits.The court explained that there is little authority on whether the denial of VA benefits would be a collateral consequence sufficient to defeat an otherwise moot habeas petition. The loss of VA benefits due to his violation of the condition challenged in his petition may be an ongoing collateral consequence that prevents this case from being moot. However, the court stated while some of Plaintiff's claims are moot they cannot make a holding in the absence of briefing from the government. Thus, the court remanded the issue for the district court to consider. View "Foster v. Warden, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Deborah Foster sought to hold defendant Ray Foster, in contempt of court for failing to abide by a provision in their consent judgment of divorce. The judgment stated that defendant would pay plaintiff 50% of his military disposable retired pay accrued during the marriage or, if defendant waived a portion of his military retirement benefits in order to receive military disability benefits, that he would continue to pay plaintiff an amount equal to what she would have received had defendant not elected to receive such disability benefits. Defendant subsequently elected to receive increased disability benefits, including Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) under 10 USC 1413a. That election reduced the amount of retirement pay defendant received, which, in turn, reduced plaintiff’s share of the retirement benefits from approximately $800 a month to approximately $200 a month. Defendant did not comply with the offset provision by paying plaintiff the difference. The trial court denied plaintiff’s request to hold defendant in contempt, but ordered him to comply with the consent judgment. Defendant failed to do so, and plaintiff again petitioned for defendant to be held in contempt. Defendant did not appear at the hearing, but argued in a written response that the federal courts had jurisdiction over the issue. The court found defendant in contempt, granted a money judgment in favor of plaintiff, and issued a bench warrant for defendant’s arrest because of his failure to appear at the hearing. At a show-cause hearing in June 2014, defendant argued that 10 USC 1408 and 38 USC 5301 prohibited him from assigning his disability benefits and that the trial court had erred by not complying with federal law. The court found defendant in contempt and ordered him to pay the arrearage and attorney fees. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the type of federal preemption at issue in this case did not deprive state courts of subject-matter jurisdiction. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded defendant’s challenge to enforcement of the provision at issue was an improper collateral attack on a final judgment. View "Foster v. Foster" on Justia Law

Dr. Dubnow, a board-certified physician with more than 40 years of experience, was Chief of the Emergency Department at Lovell Federal Health Care Center (FHCC). In 2017, he diverted an ambulance transporting an infant to Lake Forest Hospital, located a few minutes away from the FHCC. Lake Forest has a Level-II trauma center and is staffed with pediatric specialists. The child was pronounced dead upon arriving at Lake Forest. The FHCC, a VA hospital, investigated Dubnow’s diversion decision. This investigation eventually resulted in his removal. A review board concluded that none of the grounds for his removal were supported but the final reviewing authority reversed the review board’s decision. The district court affirmed the VA’s removal decision.The Seventh Circuit vacated the removal. The VA failed to properly apply the deferential “clearly contrary to the evidence” standard when reviewing the board’s decision to overturn Dubnow’s removal; the decision was arbitrary. The relevant question was whether the diversion was appropriate; if so, Dubnow’s removal could not be sustained. To conclude that treating the patient at the FHCC was possible, or even appropriate, is not to conclude that diverting the ambulance to a better-equipped hospital was inappropriate. A “conclusion that there was ‘no need’ to divert the patient is two steps removed from the analysis” under 38 U.S.C. 7462(d). View "Dubnow v. McDonough" on Justia Law

Slaughter served on active duty in the Navy, 1975-1995. In 2008, a VA Regional Office determined that Slaughter, who is righthanded, suffered right ulnar nerve entrapment as a result of his service and awarded a 10% disability rating under 38 C.F.R. 4.124a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 8516. Slaughter pursued a higher rating. VA examiners eventually additionally diagnosed Slaughter with a median nerve injury, not service-connected. In 2018, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals increased Slaughter’s rating for right ulnar nerve entrapment to 40%, finding that it could not distinguish the symptoms of his service-connected ulnar nerve entrapment from those of his non-service-connected median nerve injury and attributing the entirety of the disability to the service-connected injury. The Board determined that it would be inappropriate to rate Slaughter under DC 8512, which provides ratings for injuries to the lower radicular group, because only the ulnar nerve entrapment was service-connected.The Veterans Court and Federal Circuit affirmed. While the Veterans Court placed too heavy a burden on Slaughter to show prejudice, that error was harmless because the Board correctly interpreted section 4.124a. The section provides that “[c]ombined nerve injuries should be rated by reference to the major involvement, or if sufficient in extent, consider radicular group ratings” and refers to service-connected injuries, not to a combination of service-connected and non-service-connected injuries. View "Slaughter v. McDonough" on Justia Law

The 2010 Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act required the VA to establish two programs to help individuals who provide eligible veterans with personal care services. One program provided assistance to family caregivers, 38 U.S.C. 1720G(a); the other provided assistance to general caregivers, section 1720G(b). The VA promulgated implementing regulations, 38 C.F.R. 71 (2015). In 2018, Congress amended the Act.; the VA MISSION Act expanded the class of veterans who qualify as eligible under the family caregivers program. The program now applies to all veterans regardless of their service dates, and there are new avenues for a veteran to qualify as eligible for benefits. The VA overhauled its regulations that attempted to clarify, streamline, and regularize implementation of the Act.Objectors challenged six definitions in 38 C.F.R. 71.15 and a residency requirement imposed in 38 C.F.R. 71.10(b). The Federal Circuit addressed standing; rejected challenges to the definitions of “three or more activities of daily living,” “serious injury,” “inability to perform one or more activities of daily living,” and “monthly stipend rate”; and to the imposition of a geographic residence requirement. View "Veteran Warriors, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs." on Justia Law

Wolfe, who was enrolled in VA health care, obtained emergency treatment at a non-VA health care facility, incurring expenses of $22,348.25. Her employer-sponsored healthcare contract covered most of the expenses. She was responsible for a copayment of $202.93 and coinsurance of $2,354.41. The VA denied reimbursement of those expenses; 38 U.S.C. 1725(c)(4(D) bars reimbursement for “any copayment or similar payment.” Wolfe filed a Notice of Disagreement; rather than await the outcome of her appeal, Wolfe also filed a mandamus petition. The Veterans Court certified her requested class and granted her petition, invalidating a VA regulation prohibiting the reimbursement of deductibles and coinsurance for being within the category of “similar payments,” and requiring the VA to re-adjudicate claims denied under the invalidated regulation.The Federal Circuit reversed. Deductibles are excluded from reimbursement under the correct interpretation of the statute and other adequate remedies (appeal) were available with respect to coinsurance, so mandamus was inappropriate. Coinsurance is the type of partial coverage that Congress did not wish to exclude from reimbursement. View "Wolfe v. McDonough" on Justia Law

Martinez-Bodon served on active duty in the Army, 1967-1969. In 2016, he sought benefits for diabetes and for anxiety secondary to his diabetes. At his VA psychiatric examination, he reported: “I can’t sleep well, my right eye trembles too much and that bothers me and I get very anxious about it.” He denied having other symptoms. The VA examiner found that these symptoms did not meet the “criteria for a mental condition as per DSM–5” and concluded that she could not establish a relationship between Martinez-Bodon’s diabetes and anxiety.The VA granted him a service connection for diabetes but denied him a service connection for a mental condition. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed. The Court of Veterans Claims rejected an argument that even without a formal diagnosis, his symptoms constitute a disability for service-connection purposes under Federal Circuit precedent defining “disability.” The Federal Circuit affirmed that 38 C.F.R. 4.125(a) and 4.130, “require a DSM–5 diagnosis as a precondition to compensate mental conditions.” View "Martinez-Bodon v. McDonough" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied defendants' motion for a partial stay of the district court's preliminary injunction enjoining the Department of Defense, United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and United States Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro from enforcing certain COVID-19 vaccination requirements against 35 Navy special warfare personnel and prohibiting any adverse actions based on their religious accommodation requests. Specifically, defendants seek a partial stay pending appeal insofar as the injunction precludes them from considering plaintiffs' vaccination statuses "in making deployment, assignment and other operational decisions."The court weighed the Mindes abstention factors and determined that this dispute is justiciable. However, the court concluded that defendants have not carried their burden to warrant the issuance of the stay. The court agreed with the district court that defendants have not shown a compelling interest to deny religious accommodations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to each of the 35 plaintiffs at issue. Rather, the "marginal interest" in vaccinating each plaintiff appears to be negligible and thus defendants lack a sufficiently compelling interest to vaccinate plaintiffs. The court also concluded that the preliminary injunction does not irreparably damage the Navy and the public; partially staying the preliminary injunction pending appeal would substantially harm plaintiffs; and issuance of the requested stay would disserve the public interest. View "U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden" on Justia Law