A recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court will make it more challenging for Veterans to appeal and overturn VA disability compensation denials. In March, the high court ruled against two Veterans who maintained that the VA must err on the side of granting benefits when the supporting evidence is unclear. Air Force Veteran Joshua Bufkin and Army Veteran Norman Thorton asserted that the VA’s “benefit-of-the doubt” rule dictates that the VA must rule in favor of the Veteran when the evidence is evenly balanced. Both men asserted that the rule had not been applied in their cases.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing the opinion for the 7-2 majority, stressed that determining whether evidence is “in approximate balance” is a factual matter not a legal one. The Veterans Court, Thomas wrote, must accept the VA’s factual findings unless the decision is clearly erroneous. The ruling strengthens the VA’s hand. Because it expands the VA’s discretion in cases where the evidence appears to be evenly balanced, the court’s decision raises the standard Veterans must meet to successfully appeal a denial.
The lawyers for Bufkin and Thorton say this ruling could have "profound implications for untold numbers of Veterans.” Going forward if you file a disability claim, you must provide stronger medical and factual evidence. If you receive an unfavorable VA decision, you must meet a higher burden of proof to successfully challenge a denial in court.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Neil Gorsuch, expressing the minority opinion, said this decision "all but ensures that the Veterans Court will continue rubberstamping" the Department of Veterans Affairs' decisions despite steps Congress took to prevent that. Congress created the Veterans Court in 1988 to review disputed determinations. And the supporting legislation further codified the requirement that in close cases the scales of justice should be tipped in favor of the Veteran. Advocates for Veterans, including many VA disability attorneys, say the seven Supreme Court Justices who ruled against the two Veterans were too deferential to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
