Lillie M. Wingard v. Eric K. Shinseki
26 Vet. App. 334
Vet. App.2013Background
- Charlie N. Wingard served on active duty 1942–1963; his only service-connected disability was an inguinal hernia rated 0% since 1989.
- In 1989 VARO determined the inguinal hernia was service-connected but less than 10% disabling, and advised that compensation was not payable.
- Wingard died in September 2005 from non-service-connected conditions; at death he had a 0% service-connected disability and no pending claims or pension.
- Wingard’s daughter/appellant applied for non-service-connected burial benefits in 2005–2006 and again in 2008; VA denied, citing that the veteran was not in receipt of disability compensation or pension at death.
- Board denied burial benefits on January 11, 2011, holding Wingard was not in receipt of any compensation or pension at death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether noncompensable ratings are permissible under 1110/1155 | Wingard contends 0% ratings are unconstitutional and mean the veteran was entitled to compensation at death. | Wingard is not entitled to compensation where the service-connected disability is noncompensable. | Noncompensable evaluations may be assigned; schedule may include nonpayable grades. |
| Standing and jurisdiction to challenge burial benefits | Wingard seeks burial benefits by challenging VA's authority to assign noncompensable ratings. | Court cannot review noncompensable rating content but may review burial-benefit denial. | Court has jurisdiction and standing to review burial-benefit denial based on the Board's factual premise. |
| Equal protection challenge to § 2302(a)(1) | There is no rational basis to distinguish between those actually receiving compensation and those entitled by law at death. | No equal-protection violation; appellant not similarly situated to who actually receive benefits. | No equal-protection violation; no viable comparator. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three standing elements; injury, causation, redressability)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (court defers to agency interpretations unless plainly wrong)
- Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978) (Congress presumed aware of agency interpretations when reenacting statute)
- Haines v. West, 154 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (no standing for certain errors in final agency decision)
- Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 345 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (accrued/related veterans benefits context)
- Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 447 (2007) (Secretary's examination policies and reviewability of rating regulations)
- Smith v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (review of rating-schedule language)
- Byrd v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 388 (2005) (review scope for rating-schedule challenges)
- Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Sch., 487 U.S. 450 (1988) (equal-protection rational basis standard)
- Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc. v. Cleburne, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal-protection scrutiny basics)
- Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 629 (1992) (rating-exam procedures and related review)
- Norris v. West, 12 Vet.App. 413 (1999) (informal-claims concept and increased-rating procedures)