Washington, Mar 6, (V7N) - On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against two veterans who argued that the government should grant them disability benefits when the evidence supporting their claim is unclear.

In a 7-2 decision, the Court stated that the Veterans Court does not need to re-examine all the evidence when reviewing a denial of benefits in cases where the evidence is not conclusive. Instead, the Veterans Court can only reverse a denial if there is a clear error in the decision.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented, expressing concerns that the majority’s ruling would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to continue making decisions without proper scrutiny. Jackson argued that this decision "all but ensures that the Veterans Court will continue rubber-stamping" VA decisions, despite efforts by Congress to prevent this.

The case involved Norman Thornton, a veteran of the first Gulf War who claimed he deserved a higher disability rating for PTSD, and Joshua Bufkin, who was denied PTSD benefits after leaving the Air Force. Bufkin’s case was complicated by conflicting opinions from doctors about whether he qualified for benefits.

Veterans' advocates warned that this ruling could have significant implications for many veterans, as the court's decision limits the ability to contest denials of benefits in close cases. These veterans' groups argued that for over a century, veterans were entitled to the benefit of the doubt when applying for service-connected disability benefits.

In 1988, Congress established the Veterans Court to review disputed claims and reinforced that, in close cases, the scales should tip in favor of the veteran. However, veterans’ groups have long criticized the court for being too lenient toward VA decisions. In 2002, Congress passed legislation requiring the Veterans Court to give proper consideration to the benefit-of-the-doubt rule.

In Bufkin’s case, the Veterans Court upheld the VA’s decision, finding that one doctor’s assessment of Bufkin’s PTSD was more comprehensive than another’s. Bufkin argued that the court failed to apply the benefit-of-the-doubt rule to all the evidence in his case, which included the trauma of being caught between his wife’s threats of suicide and the military’s response advising him to either leave the service or get a divorce.

In Thornton’s case, the VA determined that the evidence showed he did not qualify for a higher disability rating despite difficulties in work and social interactions. Thornton argued that his disability rating should have been higher based on an examiner’s assessment of his “dissociative episodes” affecting his employment.

The Court’s decision in both cases has reaffirmed the government’s stance that the Veterans Court only needs to review decisions for clear errors, not re-evaluate all the evidence.

The case is known as Bufkin v. McDonough.

END/WD/SMA/