The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday against the federal government in a class-action suit over combat-related special compensation, paving the way for an estimated 9,000 retired service members to receive thousands of dollars in retroactive pay.
In a 9-0 ruling, the justices said that a law the government applied to limit retroactive pay to six years did not apply in the case of a Marine corporal who sought combat-related disability pay.
Simon Soto enlisted in the Marine Corps in August 2000 and served two tours in Iraq in mortuary affairs. He developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his job and medically retired in 2006.
Read Next: The Marines Are in Los Angeles
In 2009, he was awarded disability compensation for his medical condition by the Department of Veterans Affairs and, in 2016, he applied for combat-related special compensation — pay that is awarded to some service members who retire as a result of a service-connected medical condition.
He was approved, and his pay was backdated to July 2010 based on the interpretation of a law known as the Barring Act, which requires veterans to file compensation claims within six years of receiving a VA disability ratings decision.
Attorneys for the government argued that Congress established the six-year deadline for the submission of claims and said combat-related special compensation decisions also should be limited by six years.
But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, saying the law regarding combat-related special compensation displaces the Barring Act’s six-year time limit, so the Barring Act did not apply.
“The Federal Circuit erred by imposing undue requirements on Congress’ ability to confer settlement authority and by disregarding the [combat-related special compensation] statute’s plain text,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the opinion.
The decision means that Soto should receive two more years’ worth of payments dated to January 2008, when Congress extended the combat compensation to medically retired members who served fewer than 20 years.
At least 9,000 service members also may be entitled to additional retroactive pay. Class members in the Soto case include veterans who are owed up to $10,000 in back pay; members in a separate case, Paige v. USA, include those owed more than $10,000.
The Paige case was placed on hold pending the decision in the Soto case.
The class was represented by Sidley Austin LLP on a pro bono basis and the National Veterans Legal Services Program.
During an interview with Military.com, Renee Burbank, director of litigation at National Veterans Legal Services Program, said the financial impact of the decision is not yet known, given the variety of cases and application dates for the benefit.
No retired service member can receive retroactive pay before the passage of the 2008 law, however.
“If you do a back-of-the-envelope estimate … if the average amount of money each class member was entitled to is $5,000, and let’s say there’s about 10,000 people in both classes at this point, because, obviously, time has moved on, that’s about $50 million,” Burbank said. “It’s not huge for the government, but it’s meaningful for the class members.”
The Supreme Court has made several significant rulings regarding veterans benefits in the past two years, notably in a case that awarded veterans who served separate stints in the U.S. military additional education benefits based on their service under separate GI Bills.
The decision in Rudisill v. McDonough may have affected up to 1.7 million veterans. Two officers who would benefit from the decision have sued the Department of Veterans Affairs, however, saying that the VA is improperly denying benefits and delaying payments.
Burbank said the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in the Soto case sends a clear message that veterans who qualify for additional retroactive combat-related special compensation should receive it without question.
“There is not wiggle room for the government to say, ‘Well, actually, here’s why these folks don’t get paid.’ And also, because it’s a class action, this relief should be going directly to all of the class members. It’s not one case,” Burbank said.
Related: Supreme Court Upholds VA Court Decision Not to Review ‘Benefit-of-the-Doubt’ Evidence in Veterans’ Claims
Story Continues
Read the full article here