Background
Frank D. Batiste served in the Army from nineteen seventy-two to nineteen seventy-five. In two thousand and six, he applied for a pension without claiming a special monthly pension, answering no to the question of whether he needed regular assistance. He was granted a pension effective August eighteen, two thousand and six, without the special monthly addition. In two thousand and sixteen, he applied for the special monthly pension, which was granted with an effective date of June fifteen, two thousand and sixteen. He appealed for an earlier date, arguing his two thousand and six application should have been read as an informal claim for the special monthly pension based on evidence of his use of a walker and cane. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals and the Veterans Court both rejected this, finding no basis for an earlier effective date.
The court’s reasoning
The court concluded that Mr. Batiste presented no issue within its jurisdiction. His arguments focused almost exclusively on errors by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which the Federal Circuit cannot review. He also asked the court to reweigh evidence and find factual error, which is beyond its authority. While he argued that the Veterans Court failed to apply a sympathetic reading to his pro se claim under Comer versus Peake, the court found the Veterans Court had expressly recognized and applied that principle. The court determined that any disagreement over the application of that principle to the facts was a matter of law applied to fact, which is not reviewable. The court noted that even evidence regarding his bathing habits cited at oral argument did not alter this jurisdictional conclusion.
What it means going forward
Veterans seeking to challenge the effective date of special monthly pensions must ensure their appeals to the Federal Circuit identify specific legal errors by the Veterans Court rather than factual disputes or errors by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download