Supreme Court sides against veterans wanting stronger benefit of the doubt review in disability claims
Advocacy groups argue veterans have, for more than a century, been entitled to the benefit of the doubt for service-connect disability payments.
March 5, 2025
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the argument by two veterans who said the government must err on the side of granting them disability benefits if it’s unclear the evidence supports their claim.
The court ruled 7-2 that the Veterans Court doesn’t have to start from scratch to review the evidence when evaluating a benefits denial in a close call. Instead, the court can reverse a denial only for a clear error.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said the majority’s decision “all but ensures that the Veterans Court will continue rubberstamping” the Department of Veterans Affairs’ decisions despite steps Congress took to prevent that.
The case involved Norman Thornton, a veteran of the first Gulf War who says he rated a higher level of disability from PTSD, and Joshua Bufkin, who was denied post-traumatic stress disorder benefits after leaving the Air Force because doctors didn’t agree on whether he qualified.
Their lawyers had said the case could have “profound implications for untold numbers of veterans.”
The challengers had the backing of several veterans’ groups who argued that veterans had been entitled to the benefit of the doubt for service-connected disability payments for more than a century. And Congress has twice stepped in to ensure that happens.
In 1988, Congress created the Veterans Court to review disputed determinations and codified the requirement that scales should be tipped in favor of the veteran in close cases.
Veterans groups, however, complained that the new court was too deferential to the VA when reviewing the agency’s decisions.
In 2002, Congress directed the Veterans Court to “take due account” of the VA’s application of the benefit-of-the doubt requirement.
Veterans say Congress wanted a more thorough review, especially because the evidence often isn’t clear-cut. The federal government argued the Veterans Court must review a decision only for a clear error, not reevaluate each piece of evidence.
In Bufkin’s case, the Veterans Court found nothing obviously wrong with the VA’s determination that one doctor’s assessment about whether he suffered from service-related PTSD was more comprehensive and persuasive than another’s.
Leave the military or get a divorce
His lawyers argue the court failed to review whether the VA applied the benefit-of-the-doubt standard to the complete set of evidence. Bufkin said he was traumatized by being caught between his wife’s threats to kill herself if he didn’t leave the military and the military’s alleged response that he could leave the service or get a divorce.
The federal government said Bufkin’s case was not a close call as the preponderance of evidence was against him.
Similarly, in Thornton’s case, the VA found that the cumulative evidence showed Thornton did not merit a higher level of disability payments.
Thornton has had difficulty with work and with social interactions, among other issues, qualifying him as 50% disabled, according to the VA. But Thornton said his disability rating should be higher based on one examiner’s assessment of how “dissociative episodes” have affected his employment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the government that the Veterans Court properly reviewed both determinations.
The case is Bufkin v. McDonough.