Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

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

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Secretary of the Department of the Army, alleging age discrimination and retaliation claims. As a threshold matter, the court concluded that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., federal sector provision applied here, and the court need not decide whether a federal plaintiff must prove but-for-causation or some lesser standard under 29 U.S.C. 633a because plaintiffs' complaint stated a claim for relief under the heightened, but-for standard in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court plaintiffs have stated a claim for which relief could be granted under section 633a where plaintiffs were within the protected class under the ADEA, plaintiffs were qualified for the two newly-created positions at issue; plaintiffs were not selected for the positions; a "substantially younger" employee was selected for one of the positions instead; and one of the officials with decision-making authority over the younger employee's selection said that the department needed "new blood." Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' age discrimination claims and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Leal, et al. v. McHugh" on Justia Law

George Neville filed a petition for modification of a final judgment of divorce seeking to have his ex-wife, Tina Blitz, pay their daughter's college expenses. The chancellor ordered the parties to divide the college expenses equally, after scholarships and a monthly housing stipend from the Post-9/11 GI Bill were deducted. George, who had assigned his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his daughter, appealed arguing the chancellor erred by dividing the monthly housing stipend between Tina and himself. The chancellor found that George should take credit for the payment of the daughter's tuition, fees, and books from the Post-9/11 GI Bill, but not the monthly housing stipend. He ordered that the housing stipend be taken off the top , along with the daughter's scholarships, before the remaining expenses were divided between George and Tina. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the chancellor's allocation of the monthly housing stipend was a violation of 38 U.S.C. 3319(f)(3) because it constituted division of the benefit between parties in a civil proceeding. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case back to the chancellor to modify the order to give George credit for all benefits from the Post-9/11 GI Bill. View "Neville v. Blitz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was employed by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, LLC as an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) group leader. In 2008, Plaintiff, member of the U.S. Navy, was called to active duty. During Plaintiff's tour of duty, Pfizer restructured its API department, eliminating the API group leader position and replacing it with two separate classifications, API team leader and API service coordinator. After being discharged from active military service, Plaintiff was appointed to the API service coordinator position. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against Pfizer, asserting Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act claims and pendant state law claims, alleging, inter alia, that Pfizer violated his rights by failing to provide him with an opportunity to apply for the API team leader position. The district court concluded that because the API team leader was not an automatic promotion, the escalator principle and reasonable certainty test did not apply to Plaintiff's claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and remanded, holding that the escalator principle and reasonable certainty test apply regardless of whether the promotion at issue is automatic or non-automatic. View "Rivera-Melendez v. Pfizer Pharms., LLC" on Justia Law