(decided March 5, 2025)
Claimants for veterans’ benefits in proceedings before the Veteran’s Administration (the “VA”) are entitled to a “benefit of the doubt” presumption of entitlement, if the evidence presented to the VA is found to be in “an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence.” 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). In this case, the Court ruled 7-2 that the appellate panel reviewing a VA decision on a veteran’s claim[1] was required to review “an approximate balance” claim on appeal solely for “clear error” by the VA, instead of conducting a review “de novo.” The Court explained that the question of whether the record on appeal showed the existence of “an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence” on a particular issue was predominantly factual in nature, and that that characteristic required review under the “clearly erroneous” standard in 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (a)(4).
The two dissenting Justices, Justices Jackson and Gorsuch, relied on language in 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1) that requires the appellate court to “take due account” of the VA’s application of the “approximate balance”/ “benefit of the doubt” rule, to argue that “de novo” review was required.
Comment: The majority’s ruling is more faithful to the text of 38 U.S.C. § 7261, when read in its entirety, than the dissent.
[1] The United States Court of Appeals for Veteran’s Claims.
RECENT RULINGS 