July 2025 - August 2025 Case Law Updates

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court)

 

Loomis v. Collins (23-4348)

Decided on July 15, 2025

The appellant appealed a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision that denied education assistance benefits for a private pilot license under 38 U.S.C. § 3672 because the course was not offered by an institution of higher learning as set forth by 38 U.S.C. § 3680A(b). Panel was convened, with an oral argument to consider whether the limitation that a course be offered by an institution of higher learning applies to the provision constructively approving certain flight training courses. The Court held that it does because the “subject to” clause in 38 U.S.C. § 3672(b)(2)(A) says that it is subordinate to 38 U.S.C. § 3680A and as such, the IHL requirement must apply on top of constructive approval. The Court also considered whether 38 C.F.R. § 21.4252(c), which prohibits VA from approving any private pilot training, conflicts with section 3672(b)(2)(A). The Court determined that, in light of its holding regarding statutory interpretation, it did not need to reach the question of the regulation’s validity because he did not meet the IHL requirement.

Judge Laurer issued a dissenting opinion and stated that he would hold that Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits may extend to a flight training course offered at a private school if it's approved by a state approving agency or VA and satisfies the requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 3672(b)(2)(A)(ii). I'd also set aside 38 C.F.R. § 21.4252(c)(1) as inconsistent with § 3672(b)(2)(A)(ii).

 

Wiggins v. Collins (24-4591)

Decided on August 1, 2025

The Veteran petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans claims for extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus ordering the Board to adjudicate her administrative appeal within 30 days. The administrative appeal challenged the denial of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the rating assigned for major depressive disorder (MDD). The panel assessed whether and how the Court’s consideration of the petition is impacted by 38 U.S.C. § 7112(b), which mandates that VA employ special procedures when adjudicating claims involving military sexual trauma (MST). The Court denied the petition holding that section 7112(b) does not compel expedited adjudication of such cases, even though MST can potentially serve as a relevant consideration for the Board in assessing whether to advance an appeal on the docket under 38 U.S.C. § 7107(b) or for this Court in evaluating Agency delay under the "TRAC" factors.

Judge Jacquith dissented finding that Congress's amendment of 38 U.S.C. § 7112 in December 2022 plainly requires expedited treatment of claims involving MST and stating that he would grant the petitioner’s petiton to the extent that it seeks expedited treatment.

 

Bilharz/Pinto Jr. v. Collins (22-6158 and 23-7931)

Decided on August 14, 2025

At panel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims considered whether, for appeals processed under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (AMA), a claimant's right to fair process in VA's administrative appeal system (or the right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution) requires the same Board member who conducts a Board hearing to also render a decision of the Board in a given case. The Court held that neither the Due Process Clause nor the fair process doctrine (if different) prohibits the practice of having different Board members conduct a hearing and render a decision on a claim for benefits.

The Court also considered whether changes to VA's regulations implementing the AMA abrogated the duties we recognized in Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 488 (2010). The Court held that while the regulatory underpinning has changed from the one recognized in Bryant for legacy appeals, the substance of a Board member's duties when conducting a hearing remain the same.

 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit or Fed. Cir.)

 

Wright v. Collins (20-2154)

Decided August 1, 2025

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed CAVC’s affirmance of a veteran’s appeal wherein he requested for compensation for his adult child under 38 U.S.C. § 1115(1)(F) on the ground that he was precluded by 38 U.S.C. § 3562(2) from receiving that compensation once his daughter elected to receive direct benefits pursuant to the Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance (“DEA”) program. The Federal Circuit considered the following for statutory interpretation: (1) whether section 3562 bars a disabled veteran from receiving additional compensation under section 1115(1)(F) once the veteran’s child begins receiving DEA benefits and (2) whether, assuming that section 3562 does operate in this way, the bar may be lifted when the disabled veteran’s child exhausts his or her DEA benefits.

The Federal Circuit respectively held (1) that the nonduplication provision of section 3562 bars a disabled veteran from receiving additional compensation under section 1115(1)(F) once his or her child elects to receive DEA benefits and (2) the statute clearly imposes a permanent bar on a veteran’s receipt of additional compensation under section 1115(1)(F) once his or her child begins to receive DEA benefits.