Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Supreme Court Hears Dispute Over How Veterans’ "Benefit of the Doubt" Should Be Reviewed
Summary
At oral argument in Bufkin v. McDonough, petitioners urged the Court to treat the VA's 'approximate balance' benefit-of-the-doubt determination as a legal question subject to nondeferential review; the government defended a primarily factual, clear-error standard and urged deference to the Veterans Court.
The Supreme Court heard argument in Bufkin v. McDonough over whether appellate review of the Department of Veterans Affairs' application of the "benefit of the doubt" rule requires meaningful, nondeferential scrutiny or only deferential clear-error review.
Petitioners' counsel, Miss Bostwick, told the justices that Congress’ 2002 amendment requires the Veterans Court to "take due account" of the secretary’s application of 38 U.S.C. §5107(b) and that the change was meant to ensure "meaningful and independent judicial scrutiny" rather than a rubber-stamp approach. "It requires VA to consider all medical and lay evidence and information relevant to the issue, and then it requires if there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence on any issue that the veteran receives the…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat