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.
