Benson: Late Notice of Appeal and Equitable Tolling

Benson v. Wilkie, Case Number 18-6819, decided June 4, 2020 concerned a late notice of appeal to the Court and equitable tolling.

The Board decision was mailed September 26, 2017.  A motion for reconsideration was filed 128 days later on February 1, 2018.  The Board denied the motion on July 6, 2018 and the NOA was filed with the Court 123 later on July 6, 2018. 

The Secretary filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely and the Court ordered the veteran to show cause why the motion should not be granted. 

On April 24, 2019, the appellant responded, stating that she had experienced "severe circumstances" that prevented her from timely filing her appeal. Appellant's Apr. 24, 2019, Response at 2. The appellant submitted another response on August 12, 2019. She wrote that she had left her job in May 2017 because she had been sexually harassed. Appellant's Aug. 12, 2019, Response at 1. At the same time, she wrote,

her living conditions had compelled her to move in with her sister. Id. And though the appellant found a new job and a new apartment around August 2017, she was fired on the day that she moved into her new domicile. Id. She was evicted on January 21, 2018. Id.

Id. at *1.

As the Court explained, an appellant must file a notice of appeal within 120 days of a Board decision, which the veteran did not do.  However, the Court noted an exception.  If the veteran files the motion to reconsider with the Board within 120 days of the decision, the finality of the Board decision is abated by the motion.  Id. at *2.  The Court then noted the veteran filed his motion outside of the 120 day window, so he is not entitled to fifth exception.

The Court then noted the requirements for equitable tolling, that the appellant must show:

“(1) an extraordinary circumstance; (2) due diligence exercised in attempting to file; and (3) a connection between the extraordinary circumstance and failure to timely file.”  Id. at *2.  The Court also noted under Court Rules an untimely NOA will be treated if timely if received within 30 days after the deadline and the veteran shows good cause or excusable neglect.  Id. at *3.  The Court noted some factors to review for excusable neglect:

(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party;

(2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings;

(3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant; and

(4) whether the movant acted in good faith.

Id. at *3.

With regard to the case at hand,

The Court finds that the appellant experienced extraordinary circumstances beyond her control and that these circumstances caused the late filing of her motion for reconsideration. The appellant was sexually harassed at work in the period ending several months before the Board's September 2017 decision.  This harassment set in motion a chain of events culminating in a court-ordered

eviction in January 2018, 3 days before her appeal was due.

In May 2017, the appellant filed a formal complaint with her employer, but ultimately left her employment as a result of the sexual harassment. During the same period, partly because of the loss of income as well as deteriorating living

conditions the appellant moved in with her sister.  Although the appellant found a new job and residence 1 month before the Board's September 2017 decision, she lost that job through no fault of her own on the same day that she  moved into her new residence, and consequently, she was forced to apply for and rely on unemployment benefits.

She was then evicted on January 21, 2018, 117 days after the Board mailed its September 2017 Board decision and 3 days before her appeal was due.

Id. at *4.

The Court ultimately found the late motion to reconsideration should be tolled and that the late NOA was excusable.

This was a per curium decision by Chief Judge Bartley and Judge Toth.  Judge Greenberg concurred in the outcome but believes a more veteran friendly framework for late filings should be used.

To know more about whether Thomas Andrews can help you, please visit my website.

Breland: Involves the length of a temporary 100% rating when there is not follow up examination.

Breland v. Wilkie, Case Number 18-5980, decided May 29, 2020 involves a higher rating after service connection for cancer.

The veteran sought and was ultimately granted service connection for tongue cancer.  DC 7343 grants a 100% rating for malignant neoplasms of the digestive system.  Importantly, a note states:

A rating of 100 percent shall continue beyond the cessation of any surgical, X-ray, antineoplastic chemotherapy or other therapeutic procedure. Six months after discontinuance of such treatment, the appropriate disability rating shall be determined by mandatory VA examination. Any change in evaluation based upon that or any subsequent examination shall be subject to the provisions of § 3.105(e) of this chapter. If there has been no local recurrence or metastasis, rate on residuals.

The veteran argued he should retain the 100% rating until the VA gave him his mandatory VA examination, which in this case would have been a 100% rating for roughly a decade.  Id. at *5.  However, the Board found the 100% tongue cancer was assigned retroactively, therefore, a VA examination after six months was impossible and only granted the 100% rating for six months.

The Court determined that the note should be read prospectively based on the use of the phrase “shall continue” and need for an examination after six months.  It explains:

the plain meaning of DC 7343's note is not that, where service connection and ratings for tongue cancer are retroactively assigned years after the cancer has been eradicated and treatment has ceased, a 100% rating will continue until the date that a VA examination regarding residuals is conducted. This would lead to compensation based on pure regulatory presumption and unmoored from any medical reality.

 Id. at *7.

The Court then explained

Thus, we read DC 7343 to require the following when the rating is retroactively awarded: (1) VA may assign a noncompensable rating for malignant neoplasms when the cancer is inactive and treatment has ceased (i.e., the veteran remains service connected for that cancer)—this noncompensable period for the cancer itself will often coincide with the rating period for cancer residuals; (2) these retrospective discrete ratings are staged ratings; and (3) notice and a VA examination 6 months after cessation of treatment is only required where current compensation would be reduced, which is not what occurs

when assigning a retroactive staged rating.

Id. at *9.

The Court then explained as to residuals

In sum, the note to DC 7343 is prospective and thus the prospective procedures—i.e., the examination 6 months after cessation of treatment and contemporaneous notice of any reduction—are not strictly applicable when VA awards service connection and disability ratings retroactively.  This is particularly true where the record contains sufficient evidence for VA to ascertain a clear picture of the veteran's health and assign ratings and effective dates based on those actual medical findings. Here, based on such evidence and the note to DC 7343, VA continued the 100% tongue cancer rating from the date of service connection until 6 months following cessation of treatment for both periods and then assigned ratings based on his residuals, effective from August 1, 2007, the date after the first 100% cancer rating ended. Thus, contrary to Mr. Breland's contentions, he may not retain the 100% cancer rating from the date of service connection until October 1, 2017, the month following the second VA examination.

Id. at *14. 

Judge Greenberg wrote a concurrence and dissent focused on the a scan that showed residual cancer after the date it was assumed to be gone.

 

Decision by Judge Falvey and joined in by Judge Toth with concurrence and dissent by Judge Greenberg. 

Note the case has been appealed to the Federal Circuit.

To know more about whether Thomas Andrews can help you, please visit my website.

Smiddy: The Board and Extraschedular Consideration

Philbrook v. Wilkie, Case Number 16-2333, decided May 28, 2020 involves a consideration of the Board’s role after a decision on extraschedular considerations by the director of the Compensation Service.

The veteran had sought an extraschedular rating for residuals of an inguinal hernia repair, which had been previously remanded by the Board to the director.  Ultimately, the director denied saying

[A]part from the objective evidence confirming the 10% evaluation currently entitled to and other subjective evidence[,] such as the [appellant] indicating that his scar has caused him discomfort so that he can't wear tight fitting clothing, has affected his sexual activity, and it's slowed him down at work[,] no further evidence of an unusual disability picture such as frequent hospitalizations or of marked interference with employment have been presented. The Director also reasoned that the objective medical evidence of record suggested that the 10% schedular evaluation was adequate, that the appellant had continued to work fulltime, and that the various medical opinions had found that the appellant's disability should not prevent him from maintaining gainful employment. Id. The Director also noted that the appellant was already service connected for erectile dysfunction.

Id. at *3-4.

In its opinion, the Board affirmed finding “the evidence of record was against a finding that the appellant's inguinal hernia repair residuals presented "such an exceptional or unusual disability picture that the available schedular evaluations are inadequate.”  Id. at *4.  The Board noted manifestations of pain and numbness in the left testicle and thigh were fully contemplated by the rating criteria.  The Court also noted:

the Board determined that, although the appellant “assert[ed] his disability has worsened due to urinary symptomatology, competent medical evidence of record indicates that [his] voiding dysfunction with urinary leakage is not a symptom of his left inguinal hernia repair residuals."  R. at 8. The Board also found "no evidence of unusual factors such as frequent hospitalizations or marked interference with employment stemming from the  appellant's] inguinal hernia repair residuals." R. at 18. In reaching this conclusion, the Board stated that it had no reason to doubt the appellant's reports of slowed work performance due to pain from his inguinal hernia repair

residuals, but that "slower performance alone does not comprise [sic] marked interference with employment" and that in his TDIU request he "did not attribute his inability to work to his hernia repair residuals."

Id. at *4.

The Court begins by noting the disability ratings are based on the average impairment of earning capacity in civilian occupations, but the to do justice to exceptional cases the director is authorized to approve extraschedular ratings.  Id. at *6.  The Court noted the governing norm was whether the claimed disability presented such an exceptional or unusual disability picture with such related factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization so as to render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards.  Id. at *7.

The Court then explained the Three Step inquiry from Thun:

First, either the RO or the Board must find "that the evidence before VA presents such an exceptional disability picture that the available schedular evaluations for that service-connected disability are inadequate." Thun, 22 Vet.App. at 115. This step requires "a comparison between the level of severity and symptomatology of the claimant's service-connected disability with the established criteria found in the rating schedule for that disability." Id. If "the schedular evaluation does not contemplate the claimant's level of disability and symptomatology and is found inadequate," the second step of Thun provides that "the RO or Board must determine whether the claimant's exceptional disability picture exhibits other related factors such as those provided by the regulation as 'governing norms,'" such as "marked interference with employment" and "frequent periods of hospitalization." Id. (citing 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) (2007)). Finally, if the criteria under the first two steps are satisfied, "then the case must be referred to the [Director] for completion of the third step—a determination of whether, to accord justice, the claimant's disability picture requires the assignment of an extraschedular rating." Id.

Id. at *7.  The Court then reviews the Board’s decision under the clearly erroneous standard of review.

However, in this case, the Board had made factual findings that required referral to the Director, but then the Director denied the extraschedular rating.  The Court extended the reasoning from a series of cases in this area to say “in the extraschedular rating context, the Board's reasons-or-bases requirement obligates it to explain[] its reasoning when a factual finding made at the referral stage comes out differently at the review stage.”  Id. at *10.  In the case at hand, the Board had previously specifically found the residuals were so unusual and exceptional that it rendered the schedular criteria inadequate.  Id. at *11.  The Court then noted their really was not any new evidence since the referral (the Director’s decision is not evidence), and stated “[t]hus, it is unclear why, on mostly the same facts, the Board reached opposite conclusions.”  Id. at *11.  The Court then explained: 

Although the Board was not bound by its 2014 referral decision, it did not explain why it had reached an opposite conclusion in its 2016 decision. In the 2016 decision, the Board did not discuss the 2014 referral findings, but simply noted the referral. To enable the appellant to understand the precise basis for its decision, the Board must explain why it reached a different result. Here, the appellant believes that, by the referral in 2014, he received a "yes" to an extraschedular rating, and then in 2016 received a "no," although the Board had evaluated the same two Thun factors. Because the Board treated the 2014 and 2016 Thun determinations differently, it must explain why and how they were different. See Allday, 7 Vet.App. at 527. Its failure to do so frustrates judicial review.

Id. at *11.

This is an interesting case with narrow facts.  The Board determined at the referral stage that the disability was not adequately compensated by the schedular rating and referred to the Director, the Director disagreed, and the Board seemed to change its tune.  While similar facts have certainly happened before, I expect the VA will just train their Board members to be less helpful with factual findings on referral.  Still, it is nice to see the Court hold the Board’s feet to the fire and demand the Board explain how it suddenly changed its mind.  I suspect the truth is the Board member just did not want to crosswise with the Compensation Director.

Decision by Judge Pietsch and joined in by Judges Greenberg and Meredith.

To know more about whether Thomas Andrews can help you, please visit my website.

Philbrook: TDIU and Prison

Philbrook v. Wilkie, Case Number 18-5628, decided May 19, 2020 involves a denial of a grant of TDIU while incarcerated.

The veteran received a PTSD rating of 70% in 2004.  On 2009 he was arrested and in 2011 he entered a plea to Judgment Upon Stipulation and Finding of Guilty Except for Insanity.  It determined his actions constituted the crime of attempted murder, a class A felony.  Consistent with his plea, the Court found him “guilty except for insanity of the crime of attempted murder.”  Under Oregon law, a person “is guilty except for insanity if, as a result of mental disease or defect at the time of engaging in criminal conduct, the person lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the requirements of law.”  Given his danger to others, the court ordered him “placed under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board . . . for care, custody and treatment for a maximum period not to exceed 20 years”; and “committed [him] to the custody of the Oregon State Hospital.”  

While in custody, Mr. Philbrook sought TDIU which was denied that section 5313(c), as implemented by § 3.341(b), prohibited TDIU.

First, the Court had to deal with an issue of mootness because the veteran had eventually been released from custody and granted TDIU, but not for the time while in custody.  Succinctly, the Court stated the

case is not moot because he seeks a determination of entitlement to TDIU for a specific period of time, rather than merely entitlement to TDIU as a general matter.  VA made TDIU effective from April 13, 2018—the day after the veteran was discharged from the Oregon State Hospital. But this excludes the period between Mr. Philbrook's TDIU application date (sometime in September 2011, or in March 2013 at the latest) and his release date, all the while he was confined by the State of Oregon.

Id. at *3-4.

As to the merits of the case, the Court affirmed the Board’s decision.  It started with 38 U.S.C. § 5313(c), which reads:

The Secretary shall not assign to any veteran a rating of total disability based on the individual unemployability of the veteran resulting from a service-connected disability during any period during which the veteran is incarcerated in a Federal, State, local, or other penal institution or correctional facility for conviction of a felony.

The Court focused on the terms “incarcerated,” “penal institutional or correctional facility,” “conviction” and found they are not defined by the statute or the implementing regulation, § 3.341(b), which merely repeats the disputed statutory text without elaboration.  “Thus, this case turns on statutory, not regulatory, interpretation.”  Id. at *5.

The Court determined:

In our view, the plain meanings of these statutory terms cover Mr. Philbrook's circumstances. In accordance with his plea of guilty except for insanity, a state trial court found that his “actions constituted the crime of attempted murder, a class A felony.”  He was taken into custody and confined at a state mental institution following these criminal proceedings.

Id. at *6.  The Court supported its decision by stating:

For good measure, this interpretation of the plain language of section 5313(c) coheres with the purpose of the statute, which the Federal Circuit noted is “to correct the perceived problem of providing hundreds and thousands of tax free benefits to veterans incarcerated for the commission of felonies when at the same time the taxpayers of this country are spending additional thousands of dollars to maintain these same individuals in penal institutions.”

Id.

The Secretary and veteran also argued separately that the Court should focus on the State of Oregon’s definition of incarceration or correctional facility, but the Court refused and said it did not believe Congress wanted the statute to turn on state law.

The Court acknowledged this is a hard result because it is likely the veteran’s service connected PTSD led to his imprisonment, but the Court noted

the purpose of section 5313(c)'s prohibition on the award of TDIU to incarcerated veterans is not punitive in nature, and its application in a specific case comes with no moral judgment on the individual veteran concerned. It is a fiscal measure. And under its plain terms, Mr. Philbrook, while confined at taxpayer expense at the Oregon State Hospital after being adjudged guilty except for insanity of attempted murder, fell within its ambit.

Id. at *9.

The case has been appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Decision by Judge Toth and joined in by Judges Pietsch and Greenberg.

To know more about whether Thomas Andrews can help you, please visit my website.

Gardner-Dickson: A Writ Denied

 

Gardner-Dickson v. Wilkie, Case Number 19-4765, decided October 21, 2020 involves a request for a writ pursuant to the All Writs Act.

Regarding the writ, the veteran asks for a review of a 2019 Board remand and a finding the remand was wrong and an order directing the Secretary to readjudicate her claim with a corrected view of the law.  The idea was to stop the hamster wheel of remand by the Board and further development by the RO when the evidence was in favor of a grant.  However, the court refused to grant because it is essentially a merits ruling on a non-final Board decision.  The Court stated: “It is well settled that we have jurisdiction over Board decisions, and a nonfinal Board remand order is not a decision for purposes of section 7252.”  Id. at *3.  It rationale that “A

Board remand that does not make a final determination about the benefits sought is ‘not a decision within the meaning of section 7252(a).’”

The veteran anticipated this ruling and also sought to rely on 38 U.S.C. § 7261.  Section 7261(a)(2) authorizes the Court to "compel action of the Secretary unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed."  Id.  But, the Court refused the invitation to use Section 7261 to expand its reach explaining: “[s]ection 7261 merely sets out the scope of the review to be conducted by th[is Court] in cases within its jurisdiction; it does not itself create jurisdiction.”  Id. at * 4.

The Court also discussed unreasonable delay and relied on the TRAC factors to find none was proven.  Id. at *5-6.

A dissent by Judge Greenberg noted the Board had remanded despite also finding “the record contains no evidence contradicting the Veteran's reports.”  Id. at *11.  He noted:

Rather than being granted benefits based on uncontroverted evidence, the veteran died while VA delayed adjudicating his claim by remanding for additional evidence. This could not be what Congress intended when it enacted legislation providing benefits based on herbicide exposure.

Id. at *11.  He also wrote: “The Board’s attempt to remand the claim to determine further facts is to gather nothing but negative evidence.”  Id. at *11.  He would have granted service connection.

Decision by Judge Falvey and joined in by Judge Meredith.  Dissent by Judge Greenberg.

To know more about whether Thomas Andrews can help you, please visit my website.

Bryant: 90 Days to Submit Additional Evidence or Argument to the Board

Bryant v. Wilkie, Case Number 18-0092, decided October 26, 2020 discusses what happens when the Board renders a decision prior to 90 days elapsing after the veteran had stated he would forward additional argument. 

The issue was “whether the Board errs when, in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(a) (2017) (now 38 C.F.R. § 20.1305(a)), it issues a decision sooner than 90 days after mailing notice that an appeal has been certified and the appellate record transferred

to the Board.”  Id. at *1. 

The Court held 

when an appellant notifies VA that he or she intends to submit additional argument or evidence to the Board during the period specified in § 20.1304(a), principles of fair process prohibit the Board from issuing an adverse decision until it either receives that argument or evidence or until 90 days have elapsed since mailing the § 20.1304(a) notice.

 

Id. at *1-2. 

Procedurally, the RO issued a Statement of the Case in 2017 continuing the denial and the veteran filed an appeal to the Board stating "[f]urther argument will be advanced in memorandum in lieu of VAF 646[3 ] once BVA sends 90[-]day letter."  Id. at *2.  The

RO certified the appeal to the Board in July 2017 and the Board sent a letter on September 21, 2017, notifying the veteran his appeal had been docketed at the Board and was awaiting adjudication. The letter also stated, in relevant part: 

Please note that you have 90 days from the date of this letter or until the Board issues a decision in your appeal (whichever comes first) to request a change in representation or to submit additional argument or evidence, if you elect to do so. Any such request or submission must be sent directly to the Board. See generally 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304.

Seventy days later, on November 30, 2017, the Board issued the decision.  Id. at *2.

The Court’s ruling focused on 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(a) which reads:

An appellant and his or her representative, if any, will be granted a period of 90 days following the mailing of notice to them that an appeal has been certified to the Board for appellate review and that the appellate record has been transferred to the Board, or until the date the appellate decision is promulgated by the Board . . . , whichever comes first, during which they may submit a request for a personal hearing, additional evidence, or a request for a change in representation.

After expiration of that time period, the Board would generally only accept requests to submit additional argument and evidence if the appellant demonstrated good cause for the delayed submission. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(b) (2017).  The Court also noted the triggering event for the 90 days was the mailing of the notice the appeal had been certified to the Board.

The veteran made two arguments in this regard.  First, he mounts a facial challenge to the constitutionality of § 20.1304(a), contending that the regulation deprives appellants of their due process right to meaningfully participate in the adjudication of their appeals because it does not provide a date certain by which appellants must submit argument and evidence to the Board without having to show good cause. Id. at *3.  Second, he asserts that the Board's actions were fundamentally unfair and prejudiced him because the Board decided his appeal without waiting for the argument that he told the Board he would submit during the § 20.1304(a) period.  Id.

The Court did not address the constitutional question, but stated the Board’s decision deprived him of his non-constitutional right to fair process.  “Specifically, we hold that, once Mr. Bryant informed VA that he planned to submit new argument following receipt of the § 20.1304(a) notice letter, implicitly requesting that VA withhold a decision until he had done so, basic fairness obligated the Board to wait 90 days or until he submitted that argument to decide his appeal.”  Id. at *4.  Underlying the Court’s reasoning was the fact the VA system is nonadversarial.  Id.   “By prematurely deciding the appeal without the benefit of the argument that the Board knew was forthcoming, the Board effectively shut Mr. Bryant out of the appellate process, a process that, by law and regulation, is designed to be a partnership between the appellant and the Agency.”  Id. at *7.

The Court then turned to prejudice and noted that at oral argument his counsel stated “in addition to the previously identified written argument, he also had favorable linkage evidence that he was prepared to submit during that period.”  Id. at *8.  The Court concluded “Given that Mr. Bryant notified VA that he had additional argument that he intended to submit to the Board within 90 days of mailing of the September 21, 2017, notice letter, and given that he has since identified argument and evidence that he would have submitted during that time, the Court concludes that the veteran has carried his burden of demonstrating that he was prejudiced by the Board issuing its decision fewer than 90 days after mailing the § 20.1304(a) notice letter.” Id. at *9.

This is a good decision to remind veteran to ask for the 90 days, but also reminds you to be prepared to discuss prejudice.

Decision by Judge Bartley and joined in by Judges Greenberg and Meredith.

To know more about whether Thomas Andrews can help you, please visit my website.

Welcome: Veterans Retraining Assistance Program and Chevron Statutory Interpretation

 Welcome v. Wilkie, Case Number 18-4601, decided October 29, 2020 discusses whether the VA improperly reduced the veteran’s benefits under the VRAP.

The Veterans Retraining Assistance Program (VRAP) as a temporary program intended to provide older veterans with job retraining f high-demand occupations.  However, Congress terminated VA’s authority to issue payments under the program as of March 31, 2014.  As that date approached, VA decided to issue accelerated, lump-sum benefit payments to veterans who had remaining eligibility and who were still enrolled on a full-time basis—but only in an amount that would carry veterans to the end of their current term or June 30, 2014, whichever came earlier.  Mr. Welcome had 10 months of eligibility remaining, but as a result of the VA’s decision on how to calculate the benefit was only paid for 2 of those remaining months.

The Court’s holding was:

The question in this case is whether VA's decision to limit Mr. Welcome's benefits to the end of his term constituted a reasonable interpretation of the statute. We agree with Mr. Welcome that there was no statutory basis for such action; to the contrary, VRAP assistance was expressly tied to the veteran's program of education, and his payment should have corresponded to the full extent of his eligibility.

 Id. at *1.

While factually a narrow ruling, the Court’s statutory interpretation analysis is helpful.  It focuses on the two-step Chevron analysis. 

The Court explained: 

At step one, we ask whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter as the Court "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Id. at 842–43. If the statutory language is "silent or ambiguous," however, we proceed to step two and ask whether the agency's action is based on a "permissible construction of the statute." Id. at 843. If the agency's interpretation is based on a permissible construction, then the Court defers to it; if it is not, then the action is "arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute" and thus unlawful.

Id. at *3.  The Court begins and could have concluded with Step One.  It finds

The text of the statute makes clear that VA was required to pay eligible veterans the full extent of their benefits. We noted in Lacey that Congress designed VRAP to be "limited in duration and scope." 32 Vet.App. at 74. Commencing on July 1, 2012, VRAP contained a sunset provision limiting the Secretary's authority to make payments on March 31, 2014. § 211(a), (k), 125 Stat. at 713–15. Specifically, subsection (k) of section 211 read: "TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY— The authority to make payments under this section shall terminate on March 31, 2014." Id. at 715.

 

But while the statute ended the Secretary's ability to make payments, it did not contain any language requiring veterans to use their benefits by a certain date. Instead, the statutory text reveals other "discrete, if implied, limitations." Lacey, 32 Vet.App. at 79. We know, for example, that benefits could only issue to veterans pursuing a program on a "full-time basis." § 211(b), 125 Stat. at 713. We also know that VA could only provide "up to 12 months of retraining assistance." Id. Thus, there is a clear statutory basis for VA limiting a lump sum payment to a veteran who had dropped below full-time status or whose program of education was completed in fewer than 12

months.

 

The statute, however, contains no language directing VA to curtail or otherwise reduce a veteran's benefits, and nothing in the text or structure suggests that Congress intended to cut benefits at the end of a veteran's term or June 30, 2014, whichever came earlier. The law does not tie the veteran's benefits to a current term of enrollment or to any specific date. On the contrary, it expressly tethers benefits to the program of education, such that participants are "entitled to up to 12 months of retraining assistance" "to pursue a program of education . . . for training, on a fulltime basis in a program approved under Chapter 36, offered by a community college or technical school, leading to an associate degree or a certificate in a high demand occupation." Id. On its own terms, the statute contains only these limitations to the 12-month term of benefits.

 Id. at *4.  It then summarized by saying: 

In whole, the statute lacks any indication that Congress intended to allow VA discretion to grant a smaller allotment of benefits based on limitations other than those expressly listed. Instead, we read it as signaling a clear intent from Congress requiring VA to pay eligible veterans the full extent of the benefits provided for under the statute. Thus, once the Secretary chose to administer lump-sum payments to help veterans toward their objectives, he had an obligation to provide benefits in a manner consistent with the statutory criteria, subject only to the express limitations in the statute.

Id. at *6.

As to a step two analysis (the agency give a permissible construction), the Court noted the Secretary’s arguments: that the hard stop of June 30 was justified because Congress requested a report on VRAP's achievement of target objectives by July 1, 2014 and by reference to the Montgomery GI Bill statutory language.

As to the hard stop based on a report to Congress, the Court stated 

Although Congress wanted to know by July how many veterans participated, earned a degree, and gained employment, that request doesn't signal a congressional preference for data over veterans with remaining entitlement. The reporting requirement thus proves a slim reed to support an inference that Congress wanted veterans who were still engaged in an educational program to quit

or otherwise continue alone without assistance…. To discontinue benefits for these veterans before the end of

the education program designed to provide them with the training and credentials to obtain employment in high-demand occupations, simply to provide Congress with a report, runs counter to the objectives of what here is clearly a remedial statute.

Id. at *6-7.

As to the reference to the GI bill, the Court said a narrow GI bill provision allowing for accelerated payments limited to payments for the end of the students term was not instructive.  It found the Secretary here issued a lump sum payment for a fraction of what the veteran was entitled.

This is an interesting decision as it shows the Court still focused on a Chevron analysis, but finding failings in the VA position at steps one and two.  It is interesting and perhaps alarming that the Court did not consider any other statutory arguments such as the pro-veteran canon.

Decision by Judge Toth and joined in by Judges Pietsch and Greenberg.

To know more about whether Thomas Andrews can help you, please visit my website.