Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Wingard, a 20-year veteran, died in 2005, from causes unrelated to his military service. His daughter sought a burial-plot or interment allowance (38 U.S.C. 2303) and burial benefits (38 U.S.C. 2302(a)(1)), which provides for burial benefits only in the case of a deceased veteran “who at the time of death was in receipt of compensation . . . or was in receipt of pension.”. The Board of Veterans Appeals granted an interment allowance, but denied burial benefits. In 1989, the Department had assigned Wingard a 0% disability rating for a service-connected hernia that had been treated and showed no sign of recurrence. Wingard’s disability rating remained at 0%l. He never received disability compensation, had no claims pending, and never received a Veterans-related pension. The Veterans Court held that 8 U.S.C. 7252(b) did not preclude review and that sections 1110 and 1155 allowed the Department to find some disabilities noncompensable and assign a 0% rating. The court did not address whether “in receipt of compensation,” included “entitled to receive compensation.” The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that Congress has barred the Veterans Court and Federal Circuit from conducting such review, which must be conducted through a direct review of rulemaking determinations under 38 U.S.C. 502. View "Wingard v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Mrs. Dixon was the spouse of a veteran. A 1996 an Order of Support issued by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of Virginia ordered Mr. Dixon to pay Mrs. Dixon child support of $443.00 per month and spousal support of $1000.00 per month. Mrs. Dixon states that the Order required the Department of Veterans Affairs to garnish these sums from Mr. Dixon’s disability payments. Mr. Dixon did not make these payments. On Mr. Dixon’s death in 2004, Mrs. Dixon filed a claim with the VA Regional Office requesting the payments that she claims should have been paid to her from Mr. Dixon’s VA disability benefits, 1996-2004. The Veterans Court rejected the claim, finding that the VA was never served with legal process instructing garnishment, as required by 42 U.S.C. 659(i)(5); that Mrs. Dixon incorrectly asserted that the VA previously made partial payments pursuant to the Order; and that the $500 monthly payments she received were, instead made pursuant to 38 C.F.R. 3.452 (apportionment of veteran’s benefits if the veteran is not residing with his spouse or children). The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Dixon v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Moffitt served in the Army, 1944-1946, and was discharged due to injuries sustained during service. The VA awarded him a combined disability rating of 100%, which was later reduced to a combined 60% rating, effective 1953. Moffitt died in 1982. If a veteran’s death is not service-connected, the surviving spouse may qualify for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) if the veteran received, or was “entitled to receive,” benefits for a service-connected disability that was rated totally disabling for the 10-year period prior to the veteran’s death, 38 U.S.C. 1318. Mrs. Moffitt sought DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151, which provides that, when a veteran suffers an additional disability or death as the result of VA hospitalization, treatment, or examination, benefits shall be awarded as if such disability or death were service-connected. The Board concluded that Moffitt’s death was the result of injury incurred during hospitalization at a VA facility and posthumously granted Moffitt’s pending claim for total disability based on individual unemployability with a 1979 effective date. After several related decisions, the Board of Appeals denied Mrs. Moffitt enhanced DIC benefits, finding that regulations, amended while the claim was pending, precluded her hypothetical entitlement theory (38 C.F.R. 20.1106). The Veterans Court and Federal Circuit affirmed, applying the amendment retroactively. View "Moffitt v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Navarro served in the Army from 1958-1960. He is not a combat veteran, but served near the demilitarized zone after the Korean War. In 2005, Navarro sought service connection for PTSD. He established the condition under 38 C.F.R. 4.125(a). He provided testimony about hearing shots, seeing injured soldiers, and hearing noises while on night guard duty. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied the claim in 2008. While appeal was pending, the VA amended 38 C.F.R. 3.304(f) with respect to evidence required to establish claimed in-service stressors for PTSD claims. The Veterans Court vacated. On remand, the Board found that revised 3.304(f) did not apply because Navarro had been diagnosed by a therapist, not a “VA psychiatrist or psychologist” and that Navarro was not entitled to a VA medical examination because “none of his claimed stressor events have been sufficiently corroborated by credible supporting evidence and his account of having a continuity of PTSD symptomatology since service is not deemed credible.” The Veterans Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit remanded for determination of whether Navarro’s “claimed stressor[s are] consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran’s service.” If so, he is entitled to examination by a VA psychiatrist or psychologist. View "Sanchez-Navarro v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Blubaugh served in the Army, 1964-1966 and was a gunner in Vietnam. In 1988, he sought service connection for multiple medical conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The VA denied service connection, finding that his VA psychological examination did not support a diagnosis of PTSD. Blubaugh did not appeal, but in 1992, sought to reopen his claim. The VA concluded that a second examination did not support a PTSD diagnosis and noted the “absence of a definitive confirmable stressor.” In 2008, Blubaugh filed a second request to reopen. Unlike his previous submissions, this request included a statement describing his experiences in Vietnam and post-service difficulties. The VA also received, for the first time, medical documentation showing a positive diagnosis of PTSD. The VA granted service connection for PTSD and assigned a 10 percent disability rating effective 2008. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The effective date for a disability rating is generally determined by the date the disabling condition arose, or the date the claim was submitted, whichever is later. An exception for claims granted based on certain service department records that were associated with the veteran’s claims file after the claim was first decided does not apply to Blubaugh’s case. View "Blubaugh v. McDonald" on Justia Law

O’Bryan served in the Marine Corps from 1973-1976. His eye problems were not noted upon his entry into service. Upon discharge, he was listed as having 20/20 vision. In 1977, he filed a claim for service-connected optic disease. In medical examinations, he variously reported that his vision started to blur in1974 or 1976. He was legally blind due to Leber’s optic atrophy within one year of discharge. Certain conditions manifesting within one year after discharge are treated as though manifested during service, 38 U.S.C. 1112(a). O’Bryan argued that his symptoms began during service; that he is suffering from a “disease”; and that, because his condition was not noted upon entry, he is entitled to a presumption that the disease was incurred in service, 38 U.S.C. 1111. The VA regional office denied O’Bryan’s claim because Leber’s is not a “disease,” but a “hereditary disorder.” The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed. In 2010, O’Bryan attempted to reopen the case, but the Board rejected his contention that it had committed clear and unmistakable error. The Veterans Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the lower court misinterpreted the law on when a congenital or developmental condition is a non-compensable defect. View "O'Bryan v. McDonald" 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