Shorette v. McDonough, Case Number 23-7775, resulted in a February 6, 2025 order dismissing the motion for extraordinary relief.
Without fully detailing the past history of the case, the petitioner was the spouse of a veteran who had served as her husband’s VA fiduciary and was removed by the VA. From 2008 until 2018 she had served and allocated approximately $3,000 per month toward family expenses for the veteran’s dependents. However, she was removed after a medical record suggested she was misusing the veteran’s funds. When a successor fiduciary was appointed, no benefits were allocated for his dependents and family expenses. Ultimately, the VA found there had been no misuse and funds, but still did not restore the wife as the fiduciary and ignored her appeal.
Ultimately a 2024 order granted much of what the spouse wanted, but this order finalized the rest of the case. The petitioner had asked for sanctions against the Secretary. The Court did not sanction the Secretary stating:
“Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court will exercise restraint and will not impose sanctions. In that regard, although the Secretary's August 8, 2024, response and the P&F analyst's declaration could have been—indeed, should have been—clearer, the Court accepts counsel's representation, as an officer of the Court, that VA did not intentionally provide false information to the Court. Further, given counsel's explanations that VA viewed that information as nuanced and proactively attempted to clarify those nuances at oral argument, the Court concludes that it is not clear and convincing that VA failed to comply with an order of the Court.”
Id. at *6-7.
Judge Bartley wrote a concurrence stating:
“I agree, although reluctantly, that sanctions are not warranted in this matter. I write separately to emphasize that VA's actions regarding Ms. Shorette have been inconsistent with its mission to care for veterans and their families. It goes without saying that VA doesn't err when it investigates misuse-of-funds allegations, but VA went far beyond that here. It refused to reinstate a spouse-fiduciary once misuse allegations were determined to be unfounded and for many years deprived Ms. Shorette of benefit payments that it acknowledges she was entitled to receive. Based on the records before the Court, it is understandable why Ms. Shorette would conclude that VA's actions were punitive and retaliatory in nature—intent on punishing her for challenging their misuse-of-funds determination, for demonstrating that she had not misused funds, for proving that she had appealed her removal as a spouse-fiduciary and the subsequent appointment of a paid fiduciary, for proving that she was entitled to reinstatement as spouse-fiduciary, and for achieving at least some success in petitioning this Court. In conclusion, it is clear that VA's Veterans Benefits Administration Pension and Fiduciary Service requires substantially more thorough oversight to ensure, among other things, that it is not wasting government funds retaliating against the veterans and family members it is sworn to protect and assist.”
Id. at *7.
While the entire VA claims process can be byzantine, the VA’s fiduciary program makes the rest of the VA look like quick and accurate justice. The fiduciary program is simply the worst process I’ve ever heard of at the VA. It should reiterate that any veteran who can, should avoid it if possible. I am also concerned that the Secretary would not level sanctions in this case, if not here—when.
Per Curiam decision by Judges Bartley, Meredith and Laurer.
No comments:
Post a Comment