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

Locane, born in 1983, was adopted and does not know her family medical history. She suffered her first symptoms within two weeks of being vaccinated in 1997 and was diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease. She sought compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-1 to -34, alleging that she suffered Crohn’s disease as a result of hepatitis B vaccination. A special master denied the claim, finding Locane’s disease began before her vaccination and that Locane failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the vaccine caused or significantly aggravated her disease. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Locane v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Frederick, previously married to World War II veteran Hill, upon Hill's death became entitled to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation as surviving spouse of a veteran whose death resulted from service-related injury or disease, 38 U.S.C. 1310-1318. In 1986 she remarried at age 57. Until January 1, 2004, the law provided that a surviving spouse receiving DIC benefits lost entitlement to those benefits upon remarriage. The Veterans Benefits, Act of 2003, amending 38 U.S.C. 103(d)(2)(B), added language that “remarriage after age 57 of the surviving spouse of a veteran shall not bar the furnishing of DIC.” Congress also provided new DIC eligibility for surviving spouses who remarried after the age of 57, but before the date of enactment of the Act. The Regional VA Office denied Mrs. Frederick’s 2007 application for reinstatement as untimely. The Board of Appeals rejected her notice argument. The Veterans Court held that she was entitled to benefits. The Federal Circuit reversed, rejecting an argument that she is simply not covered by one-year limitation in subsection (e). View "Frederick v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Heino, a veteran, is prescribed a daily dose of 12.5 milligrams of Atenolol. The lowest strength available for the prescription is a 25 milligram tablet, so his physician instructed him to split each tablet in half. Heino paid a $7 copayment for a 30-day supply of 15 tablets, which he claimed was excessive in light of the fact that some veterans paid the same co-payment for twice the medication. The VA refused his request for adjustment. The Veterans Court affirmed, rejecting arguments that the regulation the VA uses to calculate his copayment amount, 38 C.F.R. 17.110, conflicts with 38 U.S.C. 1722A(a)(2), which prohibits the VA from charging a copayment “in excess of the cost to the Secretary for medication,” because the actual cost of his Atenolol prescription was well below $7.3, and that his copayment was excessive. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Heino v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Thompson served in the Navy from October 1973 to January 1975. During active service, he was treated for psychiatric symptoms, attributed to immature personality disorder. Over the following years, he was hospitalized sporadically based upon complaints of a nervous disorder and an inability to get along with others. In 1984 he was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. He was hospitalized for schizophrenia several times between 1984 and 1991. In 2006, a VA Regional Office issued a rating decision finding no service connection with respect to any acquired psychiatric disorder. Before the Veterans Court reached the merits of an appeal, the parties filed a joint motion for partial remand citing a 2009 intervening decision. The motion was granted. Thompson then moved for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Veterans Court denied the motion, holding that he was not a prevailing party under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Thompson v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Reeves served as a heavy mortar crewman during combat offensives, 1942-1945, and was awarded three Bronze Stars. In 1981, Reeves filed a claim seeking service-connected disability benefits, with a medical opinion, stating that Reeves had bilateral, nerve-type hearing loss in 1962, attributable to noise exposure or to treatment with quinine for malaria. He also submitted records of an audiogram and statements from officers with whom he had served. The board denied the claim, stating that hearing loss documented in 1962 was too remote from active service. Reeves did not appeal. In 2004, the board granted an application to re-open, citing new evidence of treatment from 1946 to 1954, and awarded him service-connected disability benefits, effective 2002. In 2006, Reeves sought revision to an earlier effective date. The board denied the motion. The Veterans Court affirmed, rejecting an assertion that the evidence of record in 1983 was such that the board had no choice but to resolve in his favor that his hearing disability was incurred in service. Reeves died in 2011; the Federal Circuit substituted his widow and reversed. The Veterans Court misinterpreted 38 U.S.C. 1154(b) in rejecting the clear and unmistakeable error claim. View "Reeves v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Heinzelman, born in 1971, received a flu vaccine in 2003, and within 30 days, was hospitalized for Guillain-Barre syndrome, a disorder affecting the peripheral nervous system. She was previously employed full-time as a hairstylist earning $49,888 per year. Due to her injury, Heinzelman will never be able to work again and is eligible to receive SSDI benefits of approximately $20,000 per year. In 2007, she sought compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-1 to 300aa-34. A special master rejected the government’s argument that her eligibility for SSDI benefits should be considered in determining compensation under the Vaccine Act, finding that SSDI is not a "federal . . . health benefits program" within the meaning of section 300aa-15(g), and awarded $1,133,046.08, plus an annuity to cover future medical expenses. According to the government, Heinzelman's lost earnings award would have been roughly $316,000 less had the special master taken her anticipated SSDI benefits into account. The Claims Court and the Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Heinzelman v. Sec'y Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Duchesneau served on active duty in the Army, July 1996 to January 1999. In 2000, a VA Regional Office granted service connection for her right shoulder bursitis with a 10 percent disability rating. In 2003 she sought an increased disability rating, but the RO denied her claim. The Board affirmed. The veterans' court rejected her claim for two separate disability ratings under a single diagnostic code, set aside the Board's decision as to a single appropriate disability rating under DC 5201 and remanded to the Board to clarify the precise extent of her right shoulder limitation. The Federal Circuit rejected an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the veterans' court decision was not a final judgment. View "Duchesneau v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Morris served on active duty for two months in 1964. His entrance examination and examination upon separation revealed no psychiatric abnormality. In 1966 Morris sought disability compensation for a psychiatric disorder, claiming that in basic training, he had suffered abuse from his sergeant, which caused him to experience nervous breakdown. The VA Regional Office denied the claim. In 1986, the RO concluded that additional evidence did not constitute new and material evidence. Following another denial, Morris presented evidence that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and a VA physician's opinion that it had its onset during service. The Board denied the claim. On remand in 1992, the Board concluded that evidence supported the claim but that its 1988 decision was final. In 1993, the RO awarded service connection for schizophrenia effective from 1987. In 1996, the Board denied a claim that the award should be retroactive to 1966. The Veterans Court rejected an argument that the 1988 Board failed to apply correctly 38 U.S.C. 105(a), 1110, and 1111, noting no evidence that the Board incorrectly considered his condition a personality disorder. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Under 38 C.F.R. 3.303(c), personality disorders are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of 1110 and are not compensable. View "Morris v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 300aa, for injuries to their children allegedly caused by the Diptheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis vaccine. The children suffer a seizure disorder, known as Severe Myoclonic Epilepsy of Infancy. The same special master presided over both cases and determined that plaintiffs failed to show entitlement to compensation because evidence showed that a gene mutation present in both children was the sole cause of their injuries. The Court of Federal Claims affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting considerable evidentiary support for the conclusion. View "Stone v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Petitioner served in the Army for about 30 months, 1981-1983 and suffered injury to her knees and wrist. The VA regional office assigned a 10 percent rating to her left wrist with an effective date of 1986. In 1987, her right arm was injured as a result of medical care she received from the VA. In 1990, her injury to right knee and shoulder were each rated at 20 percent and her left knee at 30 percent. In 1996, she was unable to continue working as a bookkeeper and brought a claim for total disability based on individual unemployability. The regional office rated her service-connected disabilities at 70 percent, but denied a total rating based on unemployability under 38 C.F.R. 4.16(a). The regional office and Board of Veterans’ Appeals rejected her 2004 application for review. The Secretary conceded that the regional office committed error by incorrectly computing petitioner’s rating. The Veterans Court found no “clear and unmistakeable error” and that the error was harmless because the RO had made an unemployability determination that satisfied the requirements for a 4.16(a) analysis. The Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because there was no issue of the interpretation of 4.16(a)View "Githens-Bellas v. Shinseki" on Justia Law