{"id":26862,"date":"2025-12-15T18:10:59","date_gmt":"2025-12-15T18:10:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/?p=26862"},"modified":"2025-12-15T18:10:59","modified_gmt":"2025-12-15T18:10:59","slug":"supreme-court-upholds-va-court-ruling-denying-veterans-benefits-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/?p=26862","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Upholds VA Court Ruling Denying Veterans\u2019 Benefits"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/header>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\u00a0Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

This article may contain commentary
\nwhich reflects the author\u2019s opinion.<\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against two veterans who contended that their disability claims were unfairly denied, despite the evidence in their cases being evenly balanced.<\/p>\n

Advertisement<\/div>\n

In a 7-2 decision, the court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have to review the Department of Veterans Affairs\u2019 use of the \u201cbenefit-of-the-doubt\u201d rule in most cases. The rule requires the VA to approve a veteran\u2019s claim when the evidence for and against approval is nearly equal, Military.com reported.<\/p>\n

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, clarified that the VA claims court and the Federal Circuit Court, which upheld the lower court\u2019s decision, were not legally required to conduct a benefit-of-the-doubt review in these specific cases.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Instead, Thomas wrote in his March 5 ruling that the claims court was required only to examine the cases for any errors made by the claims adjudicators or the Board of Veterans Appeals, the outlet reported.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe hold that the Veterans Court must review the VA\u2019s application of the rule the same way it would any other determination \u2014 by reviewing legal issues [from the beginning] and factual issues for clear error,\u201d Thomas wrote.<\/p>\n

Advertisement<\/div>\n

In the case\u00a0Bufkin v. Collins<\/i>, two veterans presented their arguments. Joshua Bufkin, who served in the Air Force from 2005 to 2006, filed a disability claim for post-traumatic stress disorder roughly seven years after leaving the service. As an airman, he struggled to complete the training required to become a military policeman, attributing his difficulties to marital stress. Court records indicate that Bufkin claimed his wife threatened suicide if he continued in the military, leading him to request a hardship discharge.<\/p>\n

Advertisement <\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

When Bufkin later applied for VA healthcare and benefits, he maintained that his issues were service-related. However, disagreements among VA doctors regarding both his PTSD diagnosis and its connection to his service resulted in the rejection of his claim.<\/p>\n

Norman Thornton, a former Army soldier who served from 1988 to 1991 and deployed during the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, initially received a 10% disability rating for PTSD, which was subsequently raised to 50%. Thornton appealed, arguing that his rating should have been even higher.<\/p>\n

In both instances, the Veterans Board of Appeals reviewed the evidence\u2014finding that Bufkin\u2019s evidence was conflicting and that Thornton\u2019s did not support a higher disability rating.<\/p>\n

The Veterans Court of Appeals later found that the claims adjudicators and the board had made no errors, though it did not perform a benefit-of-the-doubt review. On appeal, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals also agreed that such a review was unnecessary.<\/p>\n

In their petition to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued that the law clearly mandates that veterans receive the benefit of the doubt. However, Thomas stated that they failed to establish a legal argument, noting that the veterans court can only overturn a decision in the presence of a clear error.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cAfter 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,\u201d Thomas wrote.<\/p>\n

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch disagreed, Military.com reported. Jackson, in a dissent, wrote that veterans are entitled to have \u201cany reasonable doubt on a material issue\u201d resolved in their favor as Congress intended.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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\u2019s benefit-of-the-doubt determinations and also that the Veterans Court is not obliged to do anything more than defer to those agency decisions,\u201d Brown wrote. \u201cI respectfully dissent.\u201d<\/p>\n

In summary, the justices stated they accepted the case to determine whether the Veterans Court must consider the VA\u2019s use of the benefit of the doubt beyond simply reviewing for errors. The majority concluded that, in most cases, it is not required.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0Getty Images This article may contain commentary which reflects the author\u2019s opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against two veterans who contended that their disability claims were unfairly denied, despite … <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":26863,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26862","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=26862"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26862\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26864,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26862\/revisions\/26864"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/26863"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=26862"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=26862"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=26862"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}