Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

Edward Amezquita, a U.S. Navy veteran, appealed a decision denying service connection for his left shoulder disability. Prior to his service entrance examination in June 2003, Amezquita had undergone Bankart repair surgery on his left shoulder due to a motor vehicle accident. The service entrance examination noted the surgery but stated he was asymptomatic with no physical limitations. Amezquita served from July 2003 to March 2005. Shortly before his separation, he reported a shoulder injury, which was diagnosed as a sprain. In June 2005, he filed a claim for service connection for his left shoulder disability, which was denied by the VA in September 2005, citing no evidence of aggravation due to service.The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied Amezquita’s claim in August 2021, finding that the presumption of soundness did not apply because his preexisting condition was noted upon service entry. The Board analyzed the claim under the aggravation standard and found no evidence of in-service aggravation. Amezquita appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that his asymptomatic condition should not be considered a noted defect. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision, relying on precedent that an asymptomatic condition can be noted as a preexisting defect.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the Veterans Court’s interpretation that an asymptomatic condition can be noted as a preexisting defect under 38 U.S.C. § 1111. The court dismissed Amezquita’s arguments regarding the factual determination that his condition was resolved upon service entry, as it lacked jurisdiction to review factual findings. The decision was affirmed in part and dismissed in part. View "AMEZQUITA v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

The veteran served in the U.S. Army from March 1944 to May 1945 and was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 1978. He received radiation therapy at a VA facility, which successfully treated the lymphoma but led to his death in early 1979 due to pulmonary complications. The veteran’s wife, Hatfield, filed a claim for dependency and indemnity benefits, which was denied by the Regional Office (RO) for lack of service connection. Hatfield appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the Board), asserting that the veteran’s death was due to negligent VA medical care. In 1980, the Board denied the appeal, finding the VA provided adequate care and the veteran’s reaction was a recognized complication of radiation therapy.Hatfield later filed an application to reopen her claim in 2010, arguing entitlement to compensation under a 2004 regulation requiring informed consent for VA-administered medical care. The Board denied the application, but the Veterans Court reversed, granting benefits from August 1, 2010, due to the VA’s failure to obtain informed consent. In 2020, Hatfield filed a motion to revise the 1980 Board decision, claiming clear and unmistakable error (CUE) for not considering informed consent under 38 U.S.C. § 4131. The Board denied the motion, and the Veterans Court affirmed, stating there was no indication in 1980 that failure to obtain informed consent amounted to a compensable negligence claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Veterans Court’s decision. The court held that Hatfield did not demonstrate that the 1980 Board committed CUE, as there was no undebatable error in the application of the law at that time. The court found no evidence that the failure to obtain informed consent under 38 U.S.C. § 4131 was considered a compensable negligence claim under 38 U.S.C. § 351 in 1980. View "HATFIELD v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

Kevin Steele, a Marine veteran, filed an original claim in 1991 for a head injury sustained during service, which he attributed to a 1980 training incident. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examiner noted that Steele experienced occasional headaches as a residual of the head injury but deemed them non-disabling. The VA Regional Office (RO) granted service connection for the scar on Steele's scalp but did not explicitly address the headaches in its decision. Steele did not appeal this decision.In 2013, Steele filed a new claim for various conditions, including traumatic brain injury (TBI), and was awarded a 50% disability rating effective from March 6, 2013. In 2016, he filed a claim for service connection for headaches, which the RO granted with an effective date of October 14, 2015. The Board of Veterans Appeals later adjusted the effective date to March 6, 2013. Steele appealed, arguing that his 1991 claim for headaches remained open and should entitle him to an earlier effective date.The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board's decision, holding that Steele's 1991 claim for headaches was implicitly denied and thus finally adjudicated in 1991. The court applied the implicit denial rule, which provides that a claim can be deemed denied if the VA's decision provides sufficient notice that the claim was considered and rejected. The court found that the 1991 RO decision and notice letter provided Steele with reasonable notice that his claim for headaches was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court's decision, agreeing that the Board and the Veterans Court did not legally err in their application of the implicit denial rule. The court held that the reasons provided for the explicit denial of Steele's head injury claim in 1991 were sufficient to implicitly deny the related claim for headaches, thus closing off the earlier filing date. View "STEELE v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

The plaintiffs are seven members of the South Dakota Air National Guard who also work as federal civilian employees of the Department of the Air Force. They are entitled to 15 days of paid military leave each year in their civilian roles. They allege that the Adjutant General wrongfully denied them military leave while they were serving on active duty, in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, dismissed the USERRA claims sua sponte without reaching the merits of the parties’ arguments. The court concluded that the plaintiffs must demonstrate the existence of an antimilitary animus to prevail under USERRA. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to military leave. The court held that the plaintiffs do not need to show antimilitary animus because the benefit in question, military leave, is only available to members of the military. The court found that the plaintiffs' Title 10 orders converted their status from state militia members to federal service members, making them eligible for the 15 days of paid military leave under 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a)(1). The court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Christiansen v. Morrell" on Justia Law

Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the Federal Aviation Administration and a Coast Guard reserve petty officer, was called to active duty in July 2012 under 10 U.S.C. §12301(d). He served until February 2017, primarily escorting vessels to and from harbor. Despite his active-duty service, Feliciano did not receive differential pay, which compensates federal civilian employees for the pay gap between their civilian and military salaries when called to active duty during a national emergency.Feliciano sought relief from the Merit Systems Protection Board, claiming he was unlawfully denied differential pay. The Board rejected his claim, and Feliciano appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He argued that under 5 U.S.C. §5538(a) and 10 U.S.C. §101(a)(13)(B), he was entitled to differential pay because he was called to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency. The Federal Circuit, referencing its decision in Adams v. Department of Homeland Security, held that Feliciano needed to show a substantive connection between his service and a particular national emergency, which he failed to do.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and reversed the Federal Circuit's decision. The Court held that a federal civilian employee called to active duty under "any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency" is entitled to differential pay if the reservist's service coincides temporally with a declared national emergency. The Court determined that no substantive connection between the service and the national emergency is required. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "Feliciano v. Department Of Transportation" on Justia Law

Seven members of the South Dakota Air National Guard, who also work as federal civilian employees of the Department of the Air Force, alleged that the South Dakota Adjutant General wrongfully denied them military leave while they were serving on active duty, in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). The plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to 15 days of paid military leave each year in their civilian roles, which they were denied while on active duty.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, dismissed the USERRA claims sua sponte after a court trial, concluding that the plaintiffs must demonstrate the existence of an antimilitary animus to prevail. The court did not reach the merits of the parties’ arguments and found that the plaintiffs had failed to plead or prove such animus. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to military leave. The court held that the plaintiffs did not need to show antimilitary animus because the benefit in question, military leave, is only available to members of the military. The court found that the plaintiffs' active duty under Title 10 orders was not "active Guard and Reserve duty" as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 101(d)(6), and therefore, the exception in 32 U.S.C. § 709(g)(2) did not apply. Consequently, the plaintiffs were entitled to accrue military leave under 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a)(1) while serving on active duty under Title 10. The court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Christiansen v. Morrell" on Justia Law

Joshua Smith was substituted in his deceased veteran father’s appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The Board denied Mr. Smith’s request for an earlier effective date for benefits for service-connected injuries based on allegedly newly associated service department records. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board's decision.The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) regional office initially granted service connection for PTSD effective from the date of the 2010 request to reopen the claim. Mr. Smith, Sr. appealed for an earlier effective date. The Board remanded the case to obtain complete records, and the regional office found a PTSD diagnosis from 2007 but did not grant an earlier effective date. After Mr. Smith, Sr. died, the Board dismissed the appeal as moot. Joshua Smith was substituted as the claimant, and the Board granted an earlier effective date based on the 2007 diagnosis but limited Mr. Smith’s eligibility to accrued benefits necessary for last sickness or burial expenses. The regional office calculated the total accrued benefits and deferred a decision on payment pending evidence of expenses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that Mr. Smith’s appeal was moot because, as a substituted party, he was only entitled to reimbursement for last sickness and burial expenses, which amounted to $1,143. Since the accrued benefits already exceeded this amount, any decision granting an earlier effective date would not affect the outcome for Mr. Smith. The court dismissed the appeal. View "SMITH v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting LLC, along with John F. Rudman and Andre Jesus Soto, challenged a New Jersey law that restricts charging for advice on claiming veterans benefits. Veterans Guardian, a consulting company, provides paid advice to veterans on how to claim benefits. The plaintiffs argued that the New Jersey law, which mirrors federal regulations but adds civil enforcement mechanisms, violates their First Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the law did not trigger First Amendment scrutiny because it regulated conduct, not speech. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that the District Court made several errors. The Third Circuit held that Veterans Guardian's services likely constitute speech and that New Jersey's law burdens that speech by prohibiting charging for it. The court emphasized that laws restricting compensation for speech must survive First Amendment scrutiny. The Third Circuit also noted that the District Court failed to analyze the separate provisions of the New Jersey law, which impose different restrictions on speech. The court expressed skepticism about the constitutionality of the provision that bans accepting payment for services rendered before a veteran appeals the VA's initial benefits decision.The Third Circuit vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration, instructing the lower court to develop a fuller record and reconsider the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction with the guidance provided. View "Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting LLC v. Platkin" on Justia Law

George Roseberry, a U.S. Army veteran, sustained a lower back injury during his service from 1977 to 1989. In March 1994, he filed a claim for service connection related to degenerative disc disease, which was denied three months later. Between 1998 and 2005, he made several unsuccessful attempts to reopen his claim. On July 20, 2021, the Veterans Court remanded his case to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, concluding his appeal on October 12, 2021. On November 13, 2021, Roseberry filed an application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which was one day late.The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed Roseberry’s EAJA application as untimely. The court found that the application was due on November 12, 2021, 30 days after the effective date of the mandate, October 12, 2021. Roseberry’s counsel had mistakenly relied on the date the mandate was entered on the docket, October 15, 2021, leading to the late filing. The court determined that equitable tolling was not warranted as there were no “extraordinary circumstances” to justify the delay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Veterans Court’s decision. The Federal Circuit agreed that the correct standard for equitable tolling is “extraordinary circumstances,” as established by precedent. Roseberry’s late filing was due to ordinary neglect, which does not meet the threshold for equitable tolling. Consequently, the Federal Circuit upheld the dismissal of Roseberry’s EAJA application as untimely. View "ROSEBERRY v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

Larry Williams served in the U.S. Navy from August 1972 to March 1974 and filed a claim for compensation for schizophrenia in April 1978. The VA's Regional Office (RO) denied the claim in July 1978. Williams filed a Notice of Disagreement in January 1979, and the VA received additional evidence, including a hospital report diagnosing chronic schizophrenia. In June 1979, the RO confirmed the denial of service connection for schizophrenia but did not send this decision to Williams. Instead, the RO issued a Statement of the Case, which included the new evidence and confirmed the denial.Williams did not perfect his appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. In 2009, he submitted a claim to reopen his previously denied claim and was eventually granted a 100 percent disability rating effective June 4, 2009. Williams sought an earlier effective date, but the Board denied this request. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the VA had complied with 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b) in the 1979 Statement of the Case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Veterans Court's decision. The Federal Circuit held that the VA met the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b) by issuing the 1979 Statement of the Case, which included the new evidence and confirmed the denial of service connection. The court found that the Statement of the Case provided sufficient indication that the VA considered the new evidence in connection with the pending claim, thus satisfying the regulatory requirements. View "WILLIAMS v. COLLINS " on Justia Law