Latest news with #Bufkin
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Upholds VA Court Decision Not to Review 'Benefit-of-the-Doubt' Evidence in Veterans' Claims
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against two veterans who argued that their disability claims were unfairly denied because they did not receive favorable decisions when the evidence presented in their cases was equal. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is not required to review the Department of Veterans Affairs' application of the "benefit-of-the-doubt" rule in most decisions. The standard requires the VA to approve veterans' claims when the supporting evidence, either for or against approval, is close. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said the VA claims court and the Federal Circuit Court, which upheld the lower court's decision, weren't legally bound, in the specific cases, to conduct a benefit-of-the-doubt review. Read Next: Court-Martial Convenes for Pentagon Leaker Already Facing Years Behind Bars Instead, the claims court was required only to review the cases for any errors by the claims adjudicators or the Board of Veterans Appeals, Thomas wrote in a decision published March 5. "We hold that the Veterans Court must review the VA's application of the rule the same way it would any other determination -- by reviewing legal issues [from the beginning] and factual issues for clear error," Thomas wrote. The case, Bufkin v. Collins, included the arguments of two veterans: Joshua Bufkin, who served in the Air Force from 2005 to 2006, and former Army soldier Norman Thornton, who served from 1988 to 1991. Bufkin filed a disability claim for post-traumatic stress disorder roughly seven years after he left the service. As an airman, he was unable to pass the training needed to become a military policeman, citing marital stress as a contributing factor. According to court records, Bufkin said his wife threatened suicide if he stayed in the military. He ultimately was granted a hardship discharge at his own request. When he applied for VA health care and benefits, Buffkin said his issues were service-related. VA doctors disagreed over his diagnosis of PTSD as well as his service connection, and his claim was rejected. Thornton served in the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War and received a 10% disability rating for PTSD that later was increased to 50%. He appealed the decision, arguing that the rating should have been higher. In both cases, the Veterans Board of Appeals weighed the evidence, which, in Bufkin's case, conflicted, and in Thornton's case, did not support a higher disability rating, according to the board. The Veterans Court of Appeals later determined that no errors were made by the claims adjudicators or the board, but it did not conduct a benefit-of-the-doubt review. On appeal, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the review was not necessary. In their petition to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued that the law clearly indicates that veterans should receive the benefit of the doubt. Thomas said, however, that they failed to make their legal argument, adding that the veterans court can overturn a decision only when there is clear error. 'After closely examining the way in which the VA conducts the approximate balance inquiry [of benefit-of-the-doubt evidence], we conclude it is a predominantly factual question and thus subject to clear-error review,' Thomas wrote. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Neil Gorsuch disagreed. Jackson, writing a dissenting opinion, said veterans are entitled to have "any reasonable doubt on a material issue" resolved in their favor as, she argued, Congress intended. "The court today concludes that Congress meant nothing when it inserted [into law,] in response to concerns that the Veterans Court was improperly rubberstamping the VA's benefit-of-the-doubt determinations and also that the Veterans Court is not obliged to do anything more than defer to those agency decisions," Brown wrote. "I respectfully dissent." In a summary, the justices said they accepted the case to determine whether the Veterans Court was required to consider the VA's use of the benefit-of-the-doubt in claims decisions beyond a review for error. The majority decided that, in most cases, it wasn't. "[The law] does not establish a new standard of review for challenges to the VA's application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule," Thomas wrote. Related: Supreme Court Weighs Arguments in Lawsuit over Veterans Getting 'Benefit of Doubt' in Claims Decisions
USA Today
05-03-2025
- Health
- USA Today
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.
