Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

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

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that officers in the Army caused his infant son's death by ordering his pregnant wife, a servicewoman on active duty, to perform physical training in contravention of her doctors' instructions, which ultimately induced premature labor. The district court held that the suit was barred by the Feres doctrine and dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Feres doctrine immunizes the United States from liability for tort claims arising out of activities incident to military service. The court concluded that, under its own precedent, Feres barred plaintiff's wrongful death claim. The court employed the "genesis test," by asking whether the family member's Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., claim had its genesis in injuries to members of the armed forces. In this case, the infant's injury derived from his mother's military service. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that genetic injuries differed from claims based upon injuries incurred in utero. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Ritchie v. United States" 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

In 2001, Wagner, who served in the Navy for 23 years, sought disability compensation for a thyroid disorder that he claimed was contracted or aggravated in the line of duty. He finally prevailed in 2009, then timely filed an application for $11,710.57 in fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412.In October, 2009, the Veterans Court awarded $8,601.80, which gave the government all the reductions it sought except for 3.2 hours of work. Wagner filed his first supplemental application 12 days later, seeking $2,458.90 in fees for defending the original application against the government’s reasonableness challenges. The Veterans Court vacillated, then denied entry of judgment on the October 2009 fee award on the original fee application, and denied the first supplemental application. The Federal Circuit reversed in April 2011. On remand the Veterans Court granted Wagner’s first supplemental application for $2,458.90. The Federal Circuit vacated the denial of Wagner’s motion for the entry of a judgment and mandate regarding the 2009 and 2011 fee awards and affirmed the judgment regarding Wagner’s second supplemental application. View "Wagner v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, alleging that after fulfilling his two-week training obligation with the Army Reserve, he was terminated in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301-4335, and Texas Government Code 613.001-613.023. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to apply collateral estoppel to the ALJ's finding in a state administrative proceeding where a finding that plaintiff was discharged due to a disagreement about military service was not the equivalent of a finding that the County was motivated by his military status to discharge him; the court did not analyze the possible collateral estoppel effects of the ALJ's decision on a section 4312 claim because no one has briefed it; and the technical failure to plead all the currently presented defenses did not prevent consideration of them. The court also concluded that section 613.021 established venue in state court and had no effect on the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in federal court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment. View "Bradberry v. Jefferson County, Texas" on Justia Law

A mother and father of two minor children divorced in 2005. The mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children and the father was ordered to pay child support. The father then joined the Army a year later. Five years later, the mother filed a motion to modify the standing child support award, seeking to increase the father's support obligation due to an increase in his income. The father did not respond to the motion to modify until the superior court informed him that it was prepared to award child support in the amount requested by the mother if the father did not file an opposition. The father then opposed the motion, arguing that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act protected him from adverse civil actions because he was actively serving in the United States Army and contended that the mother had not properly served him with notice of the modification proceeding. Furthermore, he argued that the superior court should deduct the Basic Allowance for Housing that the father received as a servicemember from his income calculation. The superior court modified the parties' child support award without holding a hearing, ordering the father to pay increased child support. The father appealed, raising three challenges to the superior court's decision. Upon careful consideration of the father's arguments, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court with respect to the father's challenges. View "Childs v. Childs" on Justia Law

In 1998, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals rejected a claim by Tyrues, a Persion Gulf veteran, for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1110, because his lung condition lacked the required service connection, but remanded to the VA Regional Office for further consideration of whether his chronic symptoms manifested Persian Gulf Syndrome, which might have entitled him to benefits under standards later enacted as 38 U.S.C. 1117. In 2004, on remand, the Board decided that Tyrues was not entitled to benefits under section 1117. Tyrues asked the Veterans Court to review both the 2004 denial under section 1117 and the 1998 denial under section 1110. The Veterans Court dismissed with respect to the 1998 decision, ruling that Tyrues missed the 120-day deadline, 38 U.S.C. 7266(a), and presented no basis for equitable tolling. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Tyrues v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Augutis had reconstructive surgery on his foot at a VA hospital. Complications led to amputation of his leg. Augutis claims that the amputation was the result of negligent treatment and filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA denied the claim. Augutis timely requested reconsideration on March 21, 2011. On October 3, the VA informed him that it had not completed reconsideration, but that suit could be filed or additional time could be permitted to allow it to reach a decision. The letter noted that Federal Tort Claims Act claims are governed by both federal and state law and that some state laws may bar a claim or suit. Days later, the VA denied reconsideration. The letter explained that a claim could be presented to a district court within six months, but again noted that state laws might bar suit. Augutis filed suit on April 3, 2012, more than five years after the surgery, but within six months of the VA’s final dismissal. The district court dismissed under Illinois’s statute of repose, 735 ILCS 5/13‐212(a), which requires that a medical malpractice claim be brought within four years of the date of the alleged malpractice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the state limitations period was preempted by the FTCA period. View "Augutis v. Uniited States" on Justia Law

Vazquez-Claudio is a Vietnam veteran. Following his service, Vazquez-Claudio filed a claim with the VA seeking disability compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder. In 2005, after finding that his PTSD was service- connected, the VA granted his request for benefits with an effective date in June, 1994. The VA rated Mr. Vazquez-Claudio’s PTSD as 50 percent disabling, Vazquez-Claudio appealed, arguing entitlement to a 70 percent rating. He had been unable to work since 1994, when he left his job as a police officer as the result of an emotional breakdown following a prisoner’s suicide. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals found that other than occasional suicidal ideation, social isolation, and some difficulty adapting to stressful situations, none of his symptoms corresponded to impairment greater than 50 percent. The Veterans Court agreed, stating that “[t]he issue before the Board was not how many ‘areas’ Mr. Vazquez-Claudio has demonstrated deficiencies in but, rather, ‘the frequency, severity, and duration of the psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and Mr. Vazquez-Claudio’s capacity for adjustment during periods of remission.’” The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Veterans sought disability compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) allegedly caused by sexual assaults that occurred during service. Their service records do not reflect any reports of the alleged sexual assaults. The VA Regional Office, Board of Veterans’ Claims, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims rejected the claims in part on the ground that the service records did not include reports of the alleged assaults, and because the veterans stated that the assaults were never reported to military authorities. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the absence of a service record documenting an unreported sexual assault is not pertinent evidence that the sexual assault did not occur; the Board and Veterans Court may not rely on failure to report an in-service sexual assault to military authorities as pertinent evidence that the sexual assault did not occur. View "AZ v. Shinseki" on Justia Law