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

Donnellan served in the National Guard from 1969 until 2000. In 1996, a portion of his sigmoid colon was removed as treatment for colon cancer. In March 1998, after diagnosis of acquired polyposis, he had a total colectomy. While on active duty for training in May-June 1998, he became ill and underwent emergency surgery to remove a portion of his small intestine because of a small bowel perforation. After surgery, his doctors treated a small bowel fistula. The DVA denied a service connection to ensuing complications. In 2007, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied benefits, finding by clear and unmistakable evidence that Donnellan’s disease and ensuing complications did not increase in severity beyond natural progression during his period of active duty for training. The Veterans Court remanded, holding that the statutory presumption of aggravation does not apply to an increase in the degree of a disability suffered by a member of the National Guard while on active duty for training who is not a veteran under 38 U.S.C. 101(2) and that his doctor’s medical opinion did not satisfy the Board’s instructions on remand. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal. The Veterans Court’s remand order is not a final decision. View "Donnellan v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

In 1992, at age 57, Navy veteran who served on active duty during the Korean Conflict began receiving pension benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1521(a) for non-service connected disabilities. He had a combined disability rating of 80% based on prostate cancer, osteoarthritis of both knees, glaucoma/cataracts, hypertension, hyperthyroidism, and major depressive disorder. The disabilities rendered him "permanently and totally disabled." In 2006, he applied for an enhanced pension under the special monthly rate (38 U.S.C. 1521(e)), seeking consideration for housebound status because he was older than 65 years of age and had a disability rating of more than 60%. The regional office denied the claim because he had received a pension under section 1521 before turning 65. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied an appeal. The Veterans Court reversed and remanded. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, overruling Veterans Court’s interpretation of 38 U.S.C. 1513(a) in Hartness v. Nicholson (2006). Veterans applying for special monthly pension benefits under section 1521(e) should be on equal footing regardless of when they apply for a pension, i.e., whether the veteran applies before or after turning 65 years old.View "Chandler v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Federal employees are entitled up to 15 days each year of military leave to attend training as a member of a reserve of the armed forces or National Guard. 5 U.S.C. 6323(a)(1). The Federal Circuit held that federal agencies cannot charge military leave on non-workdays. Duncan worked as a civilian for the Air Force until his retirement in 2005. From 1980 to 1998, he was also in the Air Force Reserve and performed 12 days each year of active duty plus additional duty for training. In 2009, he filed a claim with the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging that the Air Force had charged his leave on non-workdays in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, seeking compensation for six days. An Administrative Law Judge granted the request, finding Duncan's recollection credible. The Board reversed, holding that it requires more than personal recollection and reliance on military documents. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The record did not show that all corroborating evidence was unavailable. View "Duncan v. Dep't of the Air Force" on Justia Law

The widow of a veteran, who had service connected post-traumatic stress disorder rated at 100% disabling, was denied dependency and indemnity compensation benefits in 2002. She filed a Notice of Disagreement. The VA regional office informed her that it was continuing to deny her claim and that she could appeal within 60 days. More than 120 days later, she attempted to appeal using VA Form 9. The VA responded that the claim could only be reopened if she submitted new and material evidence. Several months later she filed a statement and, after she submitted new evidence, the claim was reopened and granted effective July 2004, when the VA first received the request to reopen. She sought benefits effective at the date of her husband's death. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board, noting that her earlier submissions were not accompanied by new, material evidence required to reopen, 38 C.F.R. 3.156(a). The Federal Circuit affirmed. To establish an effective date of benefits granted under a reopened claim, an otherwise proper informal request to reopen need not be accompanied by new and material evidence, but the error was harmless because the Form 9 did not show any intent to reopen.View "Akers v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

The veteran served in Vietnam in the 1960s. He was honorably discharged and received service connection compensation for arthritis and hearing loss. In 1993, he had a malignant melanoma surgically removed; it continued to spread and he died in 1994. The surviving widow filed an Application for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation alleging that her husband’s death was service connected due to exposure to Agent Orange and extensive sunlight while serving in Vietnam. The Regional Office denied the claim. In 2004, she filed the current claim and submitted an internet article discussing an Air Force study that found an elevated risk of melanoma in veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange. The Board reopened and remanded the claim. On remand, a VA medical examiner determined that it was "at least as likely as not" that the melanoma was causally related to active duty service. The RO again denied the claim.. The Board affirmed. The Veterans Court vacated and remanded. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that there was no final decision.View "Ebel v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

A civilian employee of the Department of Defense retired in 2007 then served as a re-employed annuitant for a two-year term ending January 3, 2009. Like many Department employees, he was subject to the National Security Personnel System, and eligible for performance-based bonuses and salary increases until the system was repealed in 2009. He qualified in 2008, but was ineligible for a salary increase because of his two-year contract; by regulation, the effective date of any salary increase would be the first day of the first pay period on or after January 1. The Department denied a bonus, arguing that the effective date was the same as the effective of a salary increase. The employee argued that the effective date should be either the end of the appraisal period (September 30, 2008) or the first day of the following year. In his class action under the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346, the district court ruled in favor of the Department. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the court had jurisdiction under the Act and deferring to the agency's interpretation of its own regulation. View "Price v. Panetta" on Justia Law

Olivia, born in 2000, apparently healthy, became ill after her first vaccinations. Her condition required extensive hospitalization; she still requires a ventilator and a wheelchair. Her parents filed a petition with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-1 to34. Olivia's injuries are not covered by a table of injuries presumed to be caused by vaccines, so the parents were required to show that one of the administered vaccines caused or significantly aggravated her condition. They submitted two reports by experts. The special master identified unanswered questions, but the parents took the position that it was unreasonable to require such detail at the pre-hearing stage. Based on failure to submit a supplemental report and failure to identify a clear theory of causation, the special master dismissed. The claims court affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed. The special master did not appropriately review the evidence of causation under the summary judgment standard. View "Simanski v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

A widow alleged that her husband developed cancer due to exposure to radiation while he was serving on active duty. Based on regulations that presume causation for certain diseases, the Board of Veterans' Appeals awarded service connection with an effective date of 1988. The Board did not determine whether she established a direct service connection that was not based on the presumptions. The Veterans Court remanded for such findings. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting the widow's argument that the evidence in the record supported reversal and an earlier effective date. View "Byron v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

In 2009, plaintiff applied for an IT specialist position with the Miami VA Healthcare System. He did not get the job and, after exhausting rights before the Department of Labor, filed an appeal, asserting that the VA violated his rights relating to veteran's preference. The AJ concluded that the Merit Systems Protection Board had no authority to review the merits of the VA’s non-selection of plaintiff. The Board agreed. The Federal Circuit vacated. There is no way to determine whether the Veterans' Preference Act (58 Stat. 390) has been violated without examining the grounds for non-selection. The Board has jurisdiction to determine whether the VA properly afforded plaintiff the right to compete for the job and properly determined, in accordance with 5 C.F.R. § 302.302(d), that he was not qualified for the position View "Lazaro v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

Organizations challenged a rule issued by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (amending 38 C.F.R 3.304(f)) with respect to claims for service-connected disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder. The new rule: allows a veteran to establish PTSD without supporting evidence; applies the lower evidentiary standard only if a VA psychologist or psychiatrist, or one contracted with the VA, confirms the claimed-stressor supports the diagnosis; and defines the veteran’s "fear of hostile military or terrorist activity" as involving a response characterized by "a psychological or psycho-physiological state of fear, helplessness, or horror." The Federal Circuit upheld the rule as not violating the statutory requirement that the Secretary consider all medical evidence and give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant when there is an approximate balance of evidence. There is a rational basis for the distinction between private practitioners and VA associated practitioners. View "Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. v. Sec'y Veterans Affairs." on Justia Law