Despite the equally balanced evidence in their cases, the U.S. Supreme Court decided against two veterans who argued that their disability claims had been unjustly denied.
According to the court’s 7-2 ruling, the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule is generally exempt from review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. According to Military.com, the rule mandates that VA grant a veteran’s claim when the evidence supporting and opposing it is almost equal.
In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas explained that the Federal Circuit Court, which affirmed the lower court’s ruling, and the VA claims court were not legally obligated to perform a benefit-of-the-doubt review in these particular cases.
According to the outlet, Thomas stated in his March 5 ruling that the claims court’s only responsibility was to review the cases for any mistakes made by the Board of Veterans Appeals or the claims adjudicators.
“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,” wrote Thomas.
In the Bufkin v. Collins case, two veterans made their case. About seven years after leaving the Air Force, Joshua Bufkin, who was a member from 2005 to 2006, submitted a disability claim for post-traumatic stress disorder. He blamed marital stress for his inability to finish the training necessary to become a military policeman while still an airman. According to court documents, Bufkin requested a hardship discharge because he believed his wife had threatened suicide if he stayed in the military.
Bufkin insisted that his problems were service-related when he later applied for VA healthcare and benefits. But his claim was rejected because VA physicians disagreed about his PTSD diagnosis and how it related to his service.
Former Army soldier Norman Thornton, who served from 1988 to 1991 and was deployed during the Persian Gulf War in 1990–1991, was first given a 10% disability rating for PTSD, which was later increased to 50%. In his appeal, Thornton claimed that his rating ought to have been even higher.
The Veterans Board of Appeals examined the evidence in both cases and concluded that Thornton’s did not support a higher disability rating, while Bufkin’s was contradictory.
Despite not conducting a benefit-of-the-doubt review, the Veterans Court of Appeals subsequently concluded that the board and the claims adjudicators had made no mistakes. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals concurred on appeal that such a review was not required.
The plaintiffs contended in their Supreme Court petition that the law expressly requires that veterans be given the benefit of the doubt. The Veterans Court can only reverse a decision when there is a glaring error, Thomas said, adding that they were unable to present a legal defense.
“We conclude that the VA’s approach to the approximate balance inquiry [of benefit-of-the-doubt evidence] is primarily factual and, as such, subject to clear-error review,” Thomas wrote.
According to Military.com, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed. Veterans have the right to have “any reasonable doubt on a material issue” settled in their favor, as Congress intended, according to Jackson’s dissenting opinion.
“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 argued. “I respectfully dissent.”
To sum up, the justices said they agreed to hear the case in order to decide whether the Veterans Court needs to take into account the VA’s use of the benefit of the doubt in addition to checking for mistakes. The majority came to the conclusion that it is generally not necessary.
