Latest news with #U.S.CourtofAppealsforVeteransClaims
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NM officials tout support for veterans
Veterans protested at the New Mexico Roundhouse on March 14, 2025 New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez on Thursday announced the state has joined 50 other attorneys general in an amicus brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in support of U.S. Army veteran Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yoon and U.S. Air Force veteran Colonel Toby Doran, both of whom the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs denied G.I. Bill education benefits. New Mexico stands with our veterans — not just in gratitude, but in action,' Torrez said in a statement. 'These brave men and women have earned every bit of their education benefits through sacrifice and service. The VA's restrictive interpretation is not only unjust, but unlawful, and we're committed to fighting for the full support our veterans and their families deserve.' The brief argues that the VA's interpretation of the G.I. bills contradicts a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court and the precedent it set. 'Despite the clear precedent, the VA has continued to limit benefits based on an erroneous reading of the ruling, depriving veterans and their families of critical educational opportunities,' a news release from the AG's office said. In other veterans news, U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) this week cosponsored the Major Richard Star Act—bipartisan legislation backers say is intended to provide combat-injured veteran retirees their full benefits. 'The men and women who risked their lives for our country and were injured in combat deserve the full benefits they have earned. Too many veterans have been left behind, and it's far past time we correct this grave injustice,' Luján said in a statement. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Thursday signed two bills aimed at veterans: House Bill 47, which implements constitutional amendments voters approved in the 2024 general election that will raise veteran property tax exemption from $4,000 to $10,000 starting this year, with adjustments for inflation in subsequent years, among other tax relief; and House Bill 161, which provides veterans residing in New Mexico free access to state parks, including unlimited day-use passes and camping passes. 'These new laws represent our state's deep appreciation for the service of our veterans,' Secretary Jamison Herrera, brigadier general (retired), of the Department of Veterans Services said in a statement. 'The property tax relief will provide meaningful financial support to veterans and their families, while access to our state parks offers opportunities for recreation and healing in New Mexico's beautiful outdoor spaces.' New Mexico officials' actions come amid concerns from veterans about proposed cuts to the VA, including in New Mexico where veterans rallied at the Roundhouse earlier in March. In a video posted on social media March 5, VA Secretary Doug Collins said the administration's target to cut 15% of the VA's workforce will be done without decreasing benefits and health care to veterans and other beneficiaries. Vets worry Trump cuts to VA workforce will interrupt benefits
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
