Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

January 18, 2017 | Blog Post| SAFEGUARDING EVERY VETERAN'S BENEFITS: LESSONS FROM BRUCE V. MCDONALD, 2017 WL 57172

On January 5, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims rejected the assertion by the Veteran’s Administration (VA) and the Board of Veterans Appeals (the Board) that a service member who requested a discharge in Lieu of Court Martial after an unauthorized absence of 42 days was barred from seeking veteran’s benefits for an injury he had suffered on active duty. The Court’s decision in favor of the veteran ended ten years of pro bono litigation that included three separate appeals to the Court, two petitions for extra ordinary relief in response to lengthy unexplained delays in the VA’s action on the claim and three remands for error to the Board and the VA.  More importantly, the decision rejected as without basis the factual assumptions that had been employed by both the VA and the Board to bar benefits to injured service members. 

Mr. Bruce had been awarded another than honorable discharge in 1988 following his request for a discharge to in lieu of trial for his unauthorized absence.  The VA and the Board asserted that Mr. Bruce’s subsequent claim for the consequences of his in-service injury was barred by 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(d)(1). The regulation provides that veterans benefits are not due if the claimant was issued an undesirable discharge to escape trial by General Court Martial.  Mr. Bruce asserted that the regulation did not preclude his status as a veteran because he had never been referred to a General Court Martial and the record contained no evidence that his military superiors ever contemplated referring his unauthorized absence to a General Court Martial.

Given the language of the regulation cited by the VA in its denial, the Court found that a determination of what type of court-martial Mr. Bruce accepted an ther-than-honorable discharge “in lieu of,” was particularly relevant.  The Court repeatedly vacated the Board’s decisions denying Mr. Bruce’s claim for lack of evidence that would support the Board’s assertion that Mr. Bruce had been facing a General Court Martial when he made his discharge request. 

In response to each remand, the VA and the Board repeatedly denied the claim asserting that the offense itself proved that Mr. Bruce had been facing trial by General Court Martial when he made his request.  In the absent any evidence concerning the type of court martial that was contemplated by Mr. Bruce’s military superiors, the VA and the Board asserted that, as Mr. Bruce’s absence was longer than 30 days, he was “subject to a General Court-Martial” because one of the potential punishments contained within the table of maximum punishments for that offense, a dishonorable discharge, could only be administered by a General Court Martial.

In vacating the Board’s latest decision on January 7, 2017, the Court rejected the Board’s assertion that the maximum punishment authorized for Mr. Bruce’s 42 day unauthorized absence established that he requested his discharge to escape trial by General Court Martial.  The Court found that nothing in the Board's decision or in the record on appeal demonstrated or suggested that it was more likely that Mr. Bruce would have faced a General Court Martial rather than a Special Court Martial.  Accordingly, the court found that Mr. Bruce had met his burden of establishing his status as a veteran by an “approximate balance of positive and negative evidence” and remanded the matter for the VA to adjudicate the merits of Mr. Bruce’s claim for entitlement to service connection for his left foot injury. 

By rejecting the VA and the Board’s assertion that the character of the court martial at issue can be established solely on the basis of potential punishments listed in the table of maximum punishments, the Court of Appeals for Veteran’s Claims has ended the VA’s misapplication of 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(d)(1) and opened the door to other veterans whose claims would otherwise have been wrongfully denied. 

It is important to note, however, that the Court’s decision on behalf of Mr. Bruce was based upon the Court’s rejection of the Board’s “factual” findings in this case.  Time will tell whether the VA and the Board of Veterans Appeals will heed the Court’s decision and abandon the factual presumption employed in Mr. Bruce’s case or whether every service member’s claim will have to be fought year by year – as Mr. Bruce was forced to do – on the basis of the same “factual presumption” employed by the VA and the Board in this case.

John V. Garaffa

A Partner at Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP in Tampa, FL. John practices in our Construction, Cyber Losses, Extra-Contractual, First-Party Coverage, and Third-Party Coverage departments.

January 07, 2019 Blog PostOfferors relax! Offerees take note! The technical requirements of rule 2.516 do not apply to proposals for settlement

The Florida Supreme Court in Wheaton v. Wheaton, No. SC17-716, 2019 WL 99109 (Fla. Jan.4, 2019), resolved the district split on the issue whether proposals for settlement made pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 must comply with the e-mail service provisions of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516.

Read More »
October 25, 2018 Blog PostFlorida Supreme Court gives green light to insurers to take immediate appeals of rulings that find no settlement reached

Attention liability insurers and their counsel – the Florida Supreme Court has given the green light to immediate appeals of non-final orders that determine the existence and enforceability of settlement agreements.

Read More »
May 21, 2018 Blog PostThis offer expires in 30 days! No automatic extensions says high court

The new rule? The filing of a motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090 to enlarge the time to accept a proposal for settlement does not automatically toll the 30-day deadline for accepting the proposal until the motion is decided.

Read More »
August 04, 2017 Blog PostStill Keeping Us Guessing: Florida Supreme Court Poised to Clarify The Daubert Standard in Florida. Maybe.

Earlier this year, the Florida supreme court raised a red flag on the new Florida Statute section 90.702 in In re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, SC16-181, 2017 WL 633770 (Fla. Feb. 16, 2017).  In that opinion the supreme court only noted it had “grave concerns” that (unidentified) elements of the new section 90.702 Daubert statute are constitutionally suspect – it gave no substantive ruling on the matter.

Read More »
July 26, 2017 Blog PostThe Continuing Saga of Sebo v. American Home Assurance Company: The Second District Court of Appeal Rules on Remand

On July 20, 2017, the Second District Court of Appeal issued an order that closed its books on the Sebo appeal.  Mr. Sebo made a homeowner’s claim to American Home contending construction deficiencies had allowed water to enter the residence at multiple points, causing, eventually, a complete destruction of the residence.  The trial court ruled the concurrent cause doctrine applied, and so that the combination of covered water damage and excluded faulty, inadequate and defective construction had resulted in coverage for the loss. 

Read More »
June 26, 2017 Blog PostEXTRAORDINARY WRITS: CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

Extraordinary Writs:  Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.  The ins and outs of appellate relief via an extraordinary writ covered by Carol in depth in this webinar.  

Read More »
May 02, 2017 Blog PostPreserving Error For Appeal in Florida State Courts 2017 Podcast

Carol’s first webinar for the 2017 Appellate Webinar Series covered preserving error for appeal in Florida state courts.  Don’t win the battle and lose the war because of unpreserved error! 

If you missed the webinar, you can catch up on all of the essential information you need to know regarding critical preservation issues downloadable on all devices.

Read More »
April 14, 2017 Blog PostSupreme Court says lawyer's referral of client to a doctor for treatment is attorney-client privileged communication, and out of bounds in discovery

The Florida Supreme Court declared that the attorney-client privilege shielded a motor vehicle accident plaintiff from being required to disclose that her attorney had referred her to a doctor for treatment.

Read More »
April 03, 2017 Blog PostFlorida Supreme Court To Consider Rule Change Allowing Immediate Review Of Orders On Settlement Agreements

The Florida Bar Appellate Rules Committee has proposed to the Florida Supreme Court an amendment to the appellate rules that would allow immediate appeals of orders that determine if, “as a matter of law, a settlement agreement is unenforceable, was set aside, or never existed.” 

Read More »
February 21, 2017 Blog PostSupreme Court speaks on Daubert – says not much

Last week the supreme court issued its opinion on the recommendations of the Florida Bar Rules committee regarding the new Daubert statute. The supreme court noted there are “grave concerns” that (unidentified) elements of the Daubert statute are constitutionally suspect.  But, in the end, Florida’s Daubert statute is still the law of Florida – the Florida statute was not struck down or deemed to be unconstitutional.  Practitioners still must comply with it.

Read More »
September 28, 2015 Blog PostUnprotected: Florida Appellate Court Holds Protective Safeguard Condition Is Not A Condition Precedent To Coverage

A Florida appellate court recently held that the breach of a protective safeguard condition did not automatically suspend coverage.

Read More »
June 02, 2015 Blog PostThe Florida Supreme Court Endorses Citizens' Immunity

The high court declared that Citizens is shielded from statutory bad-faith suits, and that bad faith is not a “willful tort,” which is a statutory exception to the immunity granted by the Florida Legislature.  The vindication was a long time coming for Citizens.  The Legislature created Citizens with a broad immunity that seemed clearly intended to shield it from bad-faith actions...

Read More »
Key Points
Author Practice Area