Summary
This Supreme Court opinion addresses the appropriate standard of review for the Department of Veterans Affairs' application of the 'benefit-of-the-doubt rule' when evaluating veterans' disability claims. The Court held that the VA's determination that evidence is in 'approximate balance' is a predominantly factual finding subject to clear-error review by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The decision clarifies that the statutory command to 'take due account' of the rule does not mandate de novo review but rather incorporates the existing standards of review under 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether §7261(b)(1) requires the Veterans Court to review the VA’s benefit‑of‑the‑doubt determinations de novo or under the clear‑error standard of §7261(a).
- Whether the VA’s “approximate balance” determination is a factual, legal, or mixed question and what standard of review applies.
Holdings
- Section 7261(b)(1) does not create a new standard of review; the standards of review set out in subsection (a) also govern the Veterans Court’s review of benefit‑of‑the‑doubt issues.
- The VA’s determination that the evidence is in “approximate balance” is a predominantly factual determination reviewed only for clear error.
- Under §7261(b)(1)’s plain text, the Veterans Court must “take due account” of the VA’s application of the benefit‑of‑the‑doubt rule, which simply requires the Court to give appropriate attention to the VA’s work while applying the standards of review in subsection (a).
Key quotations
“The VA’s determination that the evidence regarding a service‑related disability claim is in “approximate balance” is a predominantly factual determination reviewed only for clear error.” (at 8–17)
“The approximate‑balance determination involves both legal and factual components: factual because it involves marshaling and weighing evidence, and legal because the “approximate balance” determination involves whether the evidence satisfies a legal standard.” (at 12–13)
Factual background
Petitioner Joshua Bufkin, a former Air Force member, claimed service‑connected PTSD but the VA denied his claim, finding insufficient medical linkage. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals also denied his claim after weighing multiple medical opinions and lay statements. Petitioner Norman Thornton, an Army veteran, sought an increase in his already granted PTSD rating; the Board denied the increase after a similar evidentiary review. Both veterans appealed the Board’s decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which affirmed, and then to the Federal Circuit, which likewise affirmed.
Procedural history
The Veterans Court affirmed the VA’s adverse determinations. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the meaning of §7261(b)(1).