O'Brien v. Wilkie, 948 F.3d 1339

Dennis O’Brien, a Vietnam veteran receiving service‑connected compensation, obtained legal guardianship in 2012 of D.B., his stepdaughter’s minor son.
O’Brien applied for additional dependency compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1115 for D.B.; the VA denied benefits because D.B. was an unadopted grandchild and not a biological child, stepchild, or adopted child.
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed the denial; the Veterans Court (three‑judge panel) also affirmed, holding § 1115 unambiguously limits dependents to spouses, children, and dependent parents by its enumerated benefit categories.
It was undisputed that D.B. did not meet the statutory definition of “child” in 38 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A) (not biological, adopted, or qualifying stepchild).
O’Brien argued for a broader, ordinary‑meaning definition of “dependents” (to include those he financially supports) and raised an equal‑protection/family‑association claim; the Veterans Court applied the statutory text and declined to reach constitutional arguments.
The Federal Circuit reviewed de novo, affirmed the Veterans Court’s statutory interpretation, and rejected the constitutional argument as forfeited and, in any event, not meritorious.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "dependents" in 38 U.S.C. § 1115 includes a veteran's legal ward/unadopted grandchild	O’Brien: "Dependents" should include any family members the veteran financially supports (e.g., his grandson D.B.)	Secretary: § 1115 limits benefits to the enumerated classes (spouse, children, dependent parents); statute specifies amounts only for those classes	Court: § 1115 unambiguously restricts dependency compensation to spouses, children (as defined in § 101), and dependent parents; D.B. is not covered; judgment affirmed
Whether denial violated equal protection / family association	O’Brien: requiring adoption to qualify burdens family association and denies equal protection	Secretary: constitutional challenge not raised below; statute is rationally related to legitimate administration of benefits	Court: constitutional claim forfeited for failure to raise below; alternatively, statute survives rational‑basis review and is not unconstitutional

O’Brien v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 21 (Vet. App. 2018) (Veterans Court decision interpreting § 1115 and denying compensation for unadopted grandchild)
Sucic v. Wilkie, 921 F.3d 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (standard of review for Veterans Court statutory interpretation; jurisdictional statement)
Singleton v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (issues not raised before prior tribunal are forfeited on appeal)
Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47 (1977) (Congress may adopt reasonable factual assumptions and classifications for administering benefits programs)