Supreme Court sides against veterans wanting stronger benefit of the doubt review in disability claims
Supreme Court sides against veterans wanting stronger benefit of the doubt review in disability claims Advocacy groups argue veterans have, for more than a century, been entitled to the benefit of the doubt for service-connect disability payments.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Supreme Court leans toward allowing ban on youth transgender care
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a challenge to a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for patients under 18.
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the argument by two veterans who said the government must err on the side of granting them disability benefits if it's unclear the evidence supports their claim.
The court ruled 7-2 that the Veterans Court doesn't have to start from scratch to review the evidence when evaluating a benefits denial in a close call. Instead, the court can reverse a denial only for a clear error.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said the majority's decision "all but ensures that the Veterans Court will continue rubberstamping" the Department of Veterans Affairs' decisions despite steps Congress took to prevent that.
The case involved Norman Thornton, a veteran of the first Gulf War who says he rated a higher level of disability from PTSD, and Joshua Bufkin who was denied post-traumatic stress disorder benefits after leaving the Air Force because doctors didn't agree if he qualified.
Their lawyers had said the case could have "profound implications for untold numbers of veterans.'
The challengers had the backing of several veterans' groups who argued that veterans had been entitled to the benefit of the doubt for service-connected disability payments for more than a century. And Congress has twice stepped in to ensure that happens.
In 1988, Congress created the Veterans Court to review disputed determinations and codified the requirement that scales should be tipped in favor of the veteran in close cases.
However, veterans' groups complained that the new court was too deferential to the VA when reviewing the agency's decisions.
In 2002, Congress directed the Veterans Court to 'take due account' of the VA's application of the benefit-of-the doubt requirement.
Veterans say Congress wanted a more thorough review, especially since the evidence often isn't clear-cut. The federal government argued the Veterans Court must only review a decision for a clear error, not re-evaluate each piece of evidence.
More: Supreme Court weighs veterans' disability denials, affecting 'untold numbers' of vets
In Bufkin's case, the Veterans Court found nothing obviously wrong with the VA's determination that one doctor's assessment about whether he suffered from service-related PTSD was more comprehensive and persuasive than another's.
Leave the military or get a divorce
His lawyers argue the court failed to review whether the VA applied the benefit-of-the-doubt standard to the complete set of evidence. Bufkin said he was traumatized by being caught between his wife's threats to kill herself if he didn't leave the military and the military's alleged response that he could leave the service or get a divorce.
The federal government said Bufkin's case was not a close call as the preponderance of evidence was against him.
Similarly, in Thornton's case, the VA found that the cumulative evidence showed Thornton did not merit a higher level of disability payments.
Thornton has had difficulty with work and with social interactions, among other issues, qualifying him as 50% disabled, according to the VA. But Thornton said his disability rating should be higher based on one examiner's assessment of how "dissociative episodes" have affected his employment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the government that the Veterans Court properly reviewed both determinations.
The case is Bufkin v. McDonough.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Molecular Partners presents positive data from ongoing Phase 1/2a trial of MP0533 in AML at EHA 2025
Three of eight evaluable patients with R/R AML responded after cycle 1 in ongoing cohort 8, including 1 patient with ongoing response beyond 6 months Acceptable safety profile across all cohorts, including in cohort 8 with steeper step-up dosing Data support further dose optimization to maximize therapeutic benefit of MP0533, with dosing in cohort 9 now ongoing ZURICH-SCHLIEREN, Switzerland and CONCORD, Mass., June 11, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Ad hoc announcement pursuant to Art. 53 LR Molecular Partners AG (SIX: MOLN; NASDAQ: MOLN), a clinical-stage biotech company developing a new class of custom-built protein drugs known as DARPin therapeutics ('Molecular Partners' or the 'Company'), today announced a poster presentation with positive, updated data from a Phase 1/2a trial of the tetraspecific T-cell engager MP0533 in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML), at the 30th EHA (European Hematology Association) Congress, taking place in Milan on June 12–15, 2025. The poster, Updated Results from the Ongoing Phase 1/2a Study of MP0533, a Tetra-Specific Designed Ankyrin Repeat Protein (DARPin; CD33 x CD123 x CD70 x CD3), in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory AML or MDS/AML, outlines the impact of accelerated step-up dosing regimen (steeper and faster) of MP0533 on exposure and clinical responses in cohort 8, providing the rationale for further optimization to the dosing regimen implemented in the ongoing cohort 9. Data from cohort 8 show that 3 of 8 evaluable patients (> 30%) achieved a clinical response after the first cycle, with one patient achieving a complete response and two patients a complete response with partial hematologic recovery as best overall response. Two patients maintained a response for more than 3 months and one patient remains on treatment, maintaining a response beyond 6 months at the time of data cutoff (14 April 2025). Cohort 8 implemented a higher starting dose than cohorts 1-7, and the inclusion of an additional day of dosing, reaching the target dose by day 12, as opposed to day 15 previously. Cohort 8 data indicate that patients maintained exposure to MP0533 for a longer period of time within the predicted therapeutic range through the accelerated step-up dosing scheme, within the first cycle. Data show that patients reached over 4 days of relevant exposure, with 5 out of 8 patients displaying > 50% blast reduction. MP0533 shows an acceptable safety profile after adjustment of the target dose in cohort 8. 'I am encouraged by the number and level of responses observed in the most recent cohort and have started to include patients with the new 'dense administration' schedule aiming to establish the full potential of this product for our R/R AML patients,' said Pierre Bories, MD, PhD, Principal Investigator at Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse - Oncopole, France. In cohorts 1-7, where step-up dosing reached target dose by day 15, exposure to predicted therapeutic doses was limited to roughly 2 days in the first cycle, most likely due to target-mediated-drug deposition. This prior treatment protocol, despite demonstrating initial blast reductions in ~30% of patients, resulted in limited responses. Based on the encouraging antitumor activity observed in cohort 8, the amended protocol for cohort 9 and beyond includes further acceleration of the step-up dosing to reach therapeutically-relevant doses faster, increased frequency of dosing for higher cumulative MP0533 exposure, and the introduction of anti-CD20 premedication to mitigate loss of exposure, with the objective to further increase the depth and duration of responses in patients. Cohort 9 is currently dosing patients and initial data from the amended dosing scheme are expected in H2 2025. Additionally, future study cohorts will evaluate the combination of azacitidine/venetoclax with MP0533. Details of the presentation: Updated Results from the Ongoing Phase 1/2a Study of MP0533, a Tetra-SpecificDesigned Ankyrin Repeat Protein (DARPin; CD33 x CD123 x CD70 x CD3), in Patients withRelapsed/Refractory AML or MDS/AMLTime: June 13, 18:30 - 19:30 CEST (Poster Session 1) About Molecular Partners AG Molecular Partners AG (SIX: MOLN, NASDAQ: MOLN) is a clinical-stage biotech company pioneering the design and development of DARPin therapeutics for medical challenges other drug modalities cannot readily address. The Company has programs in various stages of pre-clinical and clinical development, with oncology as its main focus. Molecular Partners leverages the advantages of DARPins to provide unique solutions to patients through its proprietary programs as well as through partnerships with leading pharmaceutical companies. Molecular Partners was founded in 2004 and has offices in both Zurich, Switzerland and Concord, MA, USA. For more information, visit and find us on LinkedIn and Twitter / X @MolecularPrtnrs For further details, please contact:Seth Lewis, SVP Investor Relations & StrategyConcord, Massachusetts, +1 781 420 2361 Laura Jeanbart, PhD, Head of Portfolio Management & Communications Zurich-Schlieren, Tel: +41 44 575 19 35 Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements Any statements contained in this press release that do not describe historical facts may constitute forward-looking statements as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended, including without limitation: implied and express statements regarding the clinical development of Molecular Partners' current or future product candidates; expectations regarding timing for reporting data from ongoing clinical trials or the initiation of future clinical trials; the potential therapeutic and clinical benefits of Molecular Partners' product candidates and its RDT and Switch-DARPin platforms; the selection and development of future programs; Molecular Partners' collaboration with Orano Med including the benefits and results that may be achieved through the collaboration; and Molecular Partners' expected business and financial outlook, including anticipated expenses and cash utilization for 2025 and its expectation of its current cash runway and the expected use of proceeds from the October 2024 offering. These statements may be identified by words such as 'aim', "anticipate', 'expect', 'guidance', 'intend', 'outlook', 'plan', 'potential', 'will' and similar expressions, and are based on Molecular Partners' current beliefs and expectations. These statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such statements. Some of the key factors that could cause actual results to differ from Molecular Partners' expectations include its plans to develop and potentially commercialize its product candidates; Molecular Partners' reliance on third party partners and collaborators over which it may not always have full control; Molecular Partners' ongoing and planned clinical trials and preclinical studies for its product candidates, including the timing of such trials and studies; the risk that the results of preclinical studies and clinical trials may not be predictive of future results in connection with future clinical trials; the timing of and Molecular Partners' ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals for its product candidates; the extent of clinical trials potentially required for Molecular Partners' product candidates; the clinical utility and ability to achieve market acceptance of Molecular Partners' product candidates; the potential that Molecular Partners' product candidates may exhibit serious adverse, undesirable or unacceptable side effects; the impact of any health pandemic, macroeconomic factors and other global events on Molecular Partners' preclinical studies, clinical trials or operations, or the operations of third parties on which it relies; Molecular Partners' plans and development of any new indications for its product candidates; Molecular Partners' commercialization, marketing and manufacturing capabilities and strategy; Molecular Partners' intellectual property position; Molecular Partners' ability to identify and in-license additional product candidates; unanticipated factors in addition to the foregoing that may cause Molecular Partners' actual results to differ from its financial and business projections and guidance; and other risks and uncertainties set forth in Molecular Partners' Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2024 and other filings Molecular Partners makes with the SEC from time to time. These documents are available on the Investors page of Molecular Partners' website at In addition, this press release contains information relating to interim data as of the relevant data cutoff date, results of which may differ from topline results that may be obtained in the future. Any forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release and are based on information available to Molecular Partners as of the date of this release, and Molecular Partners assumes no obligation to, and does not intend to, update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Most oppose GOP policy bill: Survey
More than half of voters oppose the domestic policy bill that President Trump has pushed Republicans in Congress to pass by July 4, according to a poll released Wednesday. Quinnipiac University's national survey found less than a third of registered voters surveyed support Trump's agenda-setting One Big Beautiful Bill Act, while 53 percent oppose the legislation. Twenty percent had no opinion on the megabill. The bill was overwhelmingly opposed by Democrats (89 percent) and independents (57 percent), while two-thirds of Republicans said they support the bill. The One Big Beautiful Bill includes major cost-cutting reforms to Medicaid that experts say will lead to millions of people losing coverage by 2034. It would force states to implement new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, but supporters of the bill say that will mostly affect people who entered the U.S. illegally and 'able-bodied' adults who should be working. The Quinnipiac poll found overwhelming support for Medicaid, though, as 87 percent of respondents said they oppose cuts to the healthcare program. Just 10 percent said federal Medicaid spending should be cut, while 47 percent said funding should be increased and 40 percent said it should stay the same. 'With Medicaid's future as a healthcare safety net for millions suddenly uncertain, voters make it clear they want the 60-year-old program for those in need to be handled with care,' Quinnipiac polling analyst Tim Malloy said. Twenty-one percent of Republicans surveyed said they think federal funding for Medicaid should increase, 56 percent said it should stay about the same, and 18 percent said it should be cut. Nearly 70 percent of Democrats and 47 percent of independents surveyed think federal funding for Medicaid should increase, while 2 percent of Democrats and 11 percent of independents think it should decrease. The Big Beautiful Bill narrowly passed the House last month and is under review in the Senate, where some Republicans have argued that it doesn't cut federal spending enough.
Newsweek
5 hours ago
- Newsweek
New Yorkers Warned of 38 Percent Spike in Health Insurance
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has warned her constituents that President Donald Trump's tax and domestic policy bill, which is being debated in Congress, may result in health insurance costs rising by 38 percent for some in the state. According to the governor, if the "One Big Beautiful Bill" is approved, the 140,000 New Yorkers with low-income who use the state-run marketplace health plan may see their average monthly premium costs rise by $114. Newsweek has contacted Hochul and the White House for comment via email outside regular working hours. Why It Matters Trump's "big, beautiful bill" has been divisive in Congress, with both Democrats and Republicans warning of its potential consequences. The bill, which includes about $4.9 trillion in tax breaks, passed in the House after weeks of negotiations. Some lawmakers have voiced concern about constituents losing critical benefits, while others have called for further budget cuts. Elon Musk, Trump's former adviser, has also lashed out against the bill since he left the Department of Government Efficiency. The billionaire has criticized not only the fiscal plan but also those who voted in support of it. With the Trump administration looking to make cuts and changes to federal health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, concern about health insurance has been escalating. New York Governor Kathy Hochul. New York Governor Kathy Hochul. NDZ/STAR MAX/IPx/STRMX via AP What To Know Hochul's office reported on Monday that the 38 percent spike in health insurance cost represented an average monthly increase of $114 for individuals and $228 for couples. In total, 240,000 New Yorkers would be affected, the governor's office reported, while other policies brought in by the Trump administration could increase the number of uninsured New Yorkers to 1.5 million. The effects of the legislation are expected to vary by region, with Mohawk Valley seeing the highest rise in costs—potentially a $270 jump in average monthly premiums for couples, equivalent to a 49 percent increase. Other highly affected areas include the Southern Tier, Central New York and Western New York. Couples in the mid-Hudson region could see an increase in monthly premiums of $206, or 31 percent, while couples in Finger Lakes could see costs rise by $248 a month, equating to 42 percent. New Yorkers who also have coverage via the state-run individual commercial market but do not qualify for tax credits would also be affected, Hochul's office said. The governor's report added that insurers have predicted that these constituents would experience a rise of 4.3 percent in their insurance rates next year. This would mean between 65,000 and 80,000 people in New York, so about a third of those on the state's individual market, would lose their coverage. The governor's office said the reason the bill could result in health insurance cost increases was because the GOP intended not to renew the American Rescue Plan's enhanced premium tax credits. The enhanced tax credits, established under the American Rescue Plan in 2011, were extended through to 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act and are set to expire if not renewed by the Trump administration. These tax credits helped more than double enrollment in the Affordable Care Act marketplace to about 24.3 million in 2025, according to KFF, which added that the credits boosted health care coverage a fraction more than Medicaid expansion. The expansion of enrollment was also particularly high in red states, KFF reported, increasing the number of those enrolled by 255 percent in Texas and 147 percent in Florida from 2020 to 2025. What People Are Saying New York Governor Kathy Hochul said in a news release: "The GOP's Big Ugly bill would slash health care coverage for millions of New Yorkers and raise monthly costs by hundreds of dollars. If New York's Republican delegation won't stand up for their own constituents, I will." New York State Health Commissioner Dr. James McDonald said in the news release: "The proposed cuts to federal health care support hurt everyone. These cuts take health insurance away from working New Yorkers. They undermine the progress we've made in providing affordable and accessible health insurance to New Yorkers. When people lose health insurance, they risk going without needed health care or suffering financial hardship." What Happens Next Trump's tax bill continues to make its way through the legislative process.
