The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that challenges the Department of Veterans Affairs ' handling of benefits applications and appeals, a question that could affect thousands of previously decided or current claims.
In the case Bufkin v. McDonough, the plaintiffs challenged decisions by the VA and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying benefits for health conditions. They argue that the Veterans Board of Appeals, and later, the appeals court, failed to apply a "benefit-of-the-doubt" rule that should have resulted in disability compensation awards.
By law, veterans are entitled to receive the benefit of the doubt when the presented evidence, either for or against approval, is close. The Veterans Appeals Court, established in 1988, weighs decisions by the Veterans Board of Appeals and is supposed to ensure that the board followed all regulations when making a decision, including giving "the benefit of the doubt to the claimant," according to the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2002.
Read Next: Hundreds of Veterans Kicked Out of Military for Being Gay Will Have Discharges Upgraded
But veterans Joshua Bufkin, who served in the Air Force from 2005 to 2006, and Norman Thornton, a former Army soldier who served from 1988 to 1991, say the board and the courts, including the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, did not follow the law when upholding the board's decision.
Both plaintiffs applied for benefits but were denied repeatedly by adjudicators and on appeal, with the VA deciding they were ineligible in Bufkin's case, or did not qualify for a ratings increase, as Thornton requested.
According to court documents, Bufkin served in the Air Force for six months during a time when his wife experienced mental health issues, and he was under tremendous strain to balance family and work life. He was awarded a hardship discharge after consulting an Air Force psychiatrist and later applied for VA health care and benefits, with VA doctors in disagreement over whether Bufkin had post-traumatic stress disorder and, if so, whether it was service-connected.
Adjudicators, the board and the court all rejected his disability compensation claim for PTSD.
Thornton was a soldier who deployed to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during the Persian Gulf War, serving on a tank crew and performing combat lifesaving duties. He applied for disability benefits in 2005 and received a 10% disability rating for PTSD. That later was upgraded to 50%, a decision he appealed and was denied.
In both cases, the Veterans Board of Appeals considered the evidence, which, in Bufkin's case, conflicted, and in Thornton's case, did not support a higher disability rating.
When the cases went before the Veterans Court of Appeals, the court determined that no errors were made by either the adjudicators or the board. The court did not conduct a benefit-of-the-doubt review, and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals agreed it was not necessary.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court was wrong, given that the law spells out that veterans deserve the benefit of the doubt.
"The Federal Circuit ignored the plain text of the statute and frustrated Congress's clear intent to provide for enhanced appellate review and enforcement of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule," attorneys wrote in their petition to the highest court.
The VA argued that the claims were properly handled, with Bufkin failing to provide evidence that his condition was service-connected or that he even had PTSD, and Thornton, who received a benefit-of-the-doubt decision that resulted in a 50% disability rating, did not meet the criteria for a 70% rating.
VA attorneys said the Court of Appeals and the Federal Circuit both ruled appropriately and the law only requires the Veterans Court of Appeals to review board decisions for error, not to review benefit-of-the-doubt determinations.
"Even if the question presented warranted this court's review, these cases would be poor vehicles in which to address it," Justice Department attorneys for VA Secretary Denis McDonough wrote in response.
A ruling in favor of Bufkin and Thornton could force changes in how the VA appeals court considers such cases, potentially changing the outcome of claims currently under consideration as well as past claims.
Renee Burbank, director of litigation for the National Veterans Legal Services Program, one of the nonprofits that filed a brief to the court supporting the plaintiffs, said Tuesday a decision to overturn the ruling could put the veterans court in a stronger position to examine the evidence and make more decisions than it currently does.
It also could help speed up the legal process regarding appeals, since currently, claims may languish in the court for years as veterans file repeated appeals that never come under benefit-of-the-doubt consideration, she said.
A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would not be a huge burden on the court, she said.
"[It would require the court to get] a sense of whether the board looked at all of it and made an analysis of whether evidence was in a rough approximate balance, and if so, [a] tie goes to the veteran," Burbank said.
Additional groups that filed amicus briefs favoring the plaintiffs included Disabled American Veterans, the National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium, Military-Veterans Advocacy and the Federal Circuit Bar Association.
Arguments are scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday.
Related: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Army Veteran Over Extended GI Bill Benefits
Local News
