George v. McDonough
Headline: Court limits veterans’ ability to reopen old VA disability denials, ruling later-invalidated VA regulations cannot justify reopening final benefits decisions and narrowing collateral relief for long-closed claims.
Holding: The invalidation of a VA regulation after a benefits decision becomes final cannot support collateral reopening under the statutes allowing revision for clear and unmistakable error.
- Makes it harder for veterans to reopen long-final VA disability denials based on later legal changes.
- Preserves finality of old VA decisions unless error is clear and unmistakable when made.
- Shifts focus to timely direct appeals and other reopening routes instead of decades-later regulatory rulings.
Summary
Background
Kevin George, a Marine who was medically discharged after a schizophrenic episode, filed for VA disability benefits and was denied by a regional VA office and the Board in 1977. Decades later he asked the Board in 2014 to revise that final decision, arguing the Board had applied a regulation that was later invalidated and had not applied the statutory presumption that he was in sound condition when he entered service.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether a final VA benefits decision can be reopened on the statutory ground of “clear and unmistakable error” simply because a regulation applied then was later declared invalid. The majority said Congress in 1997 codified a long-standing regulatory meaning of that phrase, and historical practice showed the category excluded later changes in law or interpretation. Because the Board applied a then-binding regulation, its decision was not the kind of collateral error that the statute allows to be corrected years later. The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment.
Real world impact
The ruling makes it harder for veterans to reopen long-closed benefits denials based solely on a later court decision invalidating a VA regulation. Veterans who want relief will generally need to have raised legal issues on direct appeal or rely on other statutory reopening paths; this decision emphasizes finality for old VA adjudications.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch dissented. Sotomayor argued the Board clearly violated the statute and veterans should get the benefit of the doubt; Gorsuch emphasized that an invalid regulation is a nullity and that obvious statutory violations should be correctable as clear and unmistakable error.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?