Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Martin, an Army veteran, applied for educational-assistance benefits under 38 U.S.C. 3011. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied the application, concluding that Mr. Martin was ineligible for benefits because the basis for his honorable discharge in 1990 constituted “willful misconduct.” The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed. The officially declared reason for Martin’s discharge was “alcohol rehabilitation failure.” The Federal Circuit vacated, stating that “alcohol rehabilitation failure” cannot be said always to constitute or result from willful misconduct, regardless of circumstances. Neither the Board nor the Veterans Court made any determination of what particular conduct constituted misconduct, engaged in with the state of mind required for willfulness, that led to the rehabilitation-failure determination.View "Martin v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

The survivors of eight firefighters who died in 2003 sought survivors’ benefits under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act, 42 U.S.C. 3796. The eight were employed by First Strike, a private company that works with governmental and private entities to help suppress wildfires, under agreements that characterized them as independent contractors. The Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Office denied the claims, and they requested redetermination by the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), which also denied the claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the BJA did not err in concluding that the firefighters were not public safety officers within the meaning of the Benefits Act. View "Moore v. Dep't of Justice" on Justia Law

Mrs. Rusick is the surviving spouse of veteran George Rusick, who served on active duty in the U.S. military 1942-1943. In 1983, a Veterans Administration regional office issued a decision continuing a 30-percent rating for Rusick’s service-connected anxiety disorder. With a service-connected hearing loss rated at 40 percent, Rusick’s combined rating was 60 percent. In 1996, the regional office increased the rating for his anxiety disorder to 100 percent. Rusick died in April 2000, with no pending claims for benefits. In May 2000, Mrs. Rusick filed a claim seeking dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) and accrued benefits. The Department of Veterans Affairs denied both claims and she did not appeal. In September 2006, Mrs. Rusick filed another claim, asserting clear and unmistakable error in that Rusick should have received a 100 percent rating in 1983 because he was unemployable. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals agreed that the regional office’s failure to assign a 100 percent rating in 1983 constituted CUE and that Mrs. Rusick was entitled to DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1318. The regional office implemented the Board’s decision by awarding DIC, but it denied accrued benefits under 38 U.S.C. 5121. The Board, Veterans Court, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Rusick v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Robertson voluntarily enlisted in the Army in 1963.After serving confinement for being absent without leave on two occasions for a total of about 340 days, Robertson was discharged in 1967 under conditions other than honorable, a character of discharge that can foreclose the receipt of veterans’ benefits. He later participated in President Ford’s clemency program, completed alternative service, and received a presidential pardon and a new clemency discharge. Despite his pardon and clemency discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs has continued to deny Robertson’s claim for veterans’ benefits. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the Department of Veterans Affairs properly considered the misconduct underlying his pardoned offense to deny his application for benefits. Entitlement to veterans’ benefits under the clemency program was meant to be the exception, not the rule. View "Robertson v. Gibson" 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

Bowers served in the Army National Guard 1972-1978, with a continuous period of active duty for training from August 1972 to February 1973. His records do not reflect that he incurred any injury or disease during service. In 2009, shortly after his diagnosis with Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), Bowers sought benefits for ALS and secondary conditions. A VA Regional Office denied the claim, finding that his ALS was not incurred or aggravated in service. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals rejected his argument that he was entitled to presumptive service connection for ALS under 38 C.F.R. 3.318, noting that reserve duty and active duty for training of the type Bowers performed does not generally entitle an individual to evidentiary presumptions. While his appeal to the Veterans Court was pending, Bowers died and his wife was substituted as the appellant. The Veterans Court affirmed, finding that Bowers did not achieve “veteran status,” and was not entitled to presumptive service connection. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Bowers v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

M.L. was born in 2003. At his 15-month well-child visit, his pediatrician noted that M.L. was walking and generally developing normally but did not “want to talk.” In 2005, M.L. received several immunizations, including the DTaP vaccination. Hours later, M.L. allegedly began experiencing an abnormally high fever and swelling. He was admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of “vaccine adverse reaction with secondary fever, angiodema, and anaphylactoid reaction.” The morning after his discharge, M.L.’s mother called an ambulance because M.L. was exhibiting signs of hypothermia and seizure-like episodes. In the months that followed, M.L.’s vocabulary allegedly decreased. An MRI of M.L.’s brain with and without contrast was normal. After observing M.L.’s developmental delays and repetitive behaviors, a pediatric neurologist placed M.L. in the autism spectrum disorder category. A special master rejected claims under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-1 to -34, and the Claims Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. While the DTaP vaccination likely caused the initial anaphylactic reaction, there was no reliable medical theory that the M.L.’s anaphylaxis caused a focal brain injury. View "LaLonde v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, 31 U.S.C. 6301, states that an executive agency must use: “a procurement contract . . . when . . . the principal purpose … is to acquire … property or services for the direct benefit or use” of the government and must adhere to the Competition in Contracting Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulation However, an “agency shall use a cooperative agreement . . . when . . . the principal purpose … is to transfer a thing of value … to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation … instead of acquiring . . . property or service” and can avoid procurement laws. Under Section 8 of the Housing Act, HUD provides rental assistance, including entering Housing Assistance Program (HAP) contracts and paying subsidies directly to private landlords. A 1974 amendment gave HUD the option of entering an Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) with a Public Housing Agency (PHA), which would enter into HAP contracts with owners and pay subsidies with HUD funds. In 1983, HUD’s authority was amended. HUD could administer existing HAP contracts, and enter into new HAP contracts for existing Section 8 dwellings by engaging a PHA if possible, 42 U.S.C. 1437f(b)(1). Later, HUD began outsourcing services and initiated a competition to award a performance-based ACC to a PHA in each state, with the PHA to assume “all contractual rights and responsibilities of HUD.” After making an award, HUD chose to re-compete, seeking greater savings, expressly referring to “cooperative agreements,” outside the scope of procurement law. The Government Accountability Office agreed with protestors that the awards were procurement contracts. HUD disregarded that recommendation. The Claims Court denied a request to set aside the award. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the awards are procurement contracts, not cooperative agreements.View "CMS Contract Mgmt. Servs. v. United States" on Justia Law

Larson, a Vietnam War veteran, suffered a gunshot wound in service. In 1969, he was granted a 40 percent combined disability rating. He did not appeal. In 2007, he claimed clear and unmistakable error (CUE), arguing misapplication of diagnostic codes in effect in 1969. The Regional Office denied his claim. The Board affirmed, stating: “the Veteran has not demonstrated that the law in effect during that time was incorrectly applied or that the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicators.” The Veterans Court rejected his challenges on the merits and a motion to modify the decision by deleting the phrase “or that the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicators.” Larson was concerned that the language could be interpreted as a ruling on a “correct facts” CUE claim, precluding him from raising such a claim in the future. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Veterans Court erred in holding that there is only one opportunity to raise any allegation of CUE for each claim decided by the Board. Under 38 C.F.R. 3.105(a) a veteran may raise a new argument that a RO committed CUE at any time. Larson only challenged the legal basis for the 1969 determination, and did not assert that the adjudicators did not have the correct facts before them; he remains free to raise a “correct facts” CUE claim, so his request for clarification of the Board’s decision was not moot. View "Larson v. Shinseki" on Justia Law