Pereida v. Collins
24-2018
Fed. Cir.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Rebecca M. Pereida is the child of a male Vietnam veteran, not a female veteran.
- In 2019, Pereida applied to the VA for disability benefits available to certain children of Vietnam veterans.
- The VA regional office and Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied her claim, citing statutory language that limits certain birth defect benefits to children of women Vietnam veterans.
- Pereida appealed, arguing that the statute's sex-based distinction was unconstitutional discrimination.
- The Veterans Court affirmed the denial, providing minimal reasoning and unclear rationale for rejecting the constitutional argument.
- Pereida appealed to the Federal Circuit, which vacated and remanded the case to the Veterans Court for consideration of the constitutional challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of sex-based statutory limit | Statute impermissibly discriminates based on sex by excluding children of male veterans | Statutory distinction is permissible or argument was forfeited | Veterans Court did not sufficiently address the issue; remanded for further proceedings |
| Forfeiture of constitutional argument | Argument was in fact raised before the Veterans Court | Argument not properly presented to the Board for administrative exhaustion | Veterans Court did not articulate forfeiture as a ground for decision |
| Veterans Court’s jurisdiction to decide issue | Veterans Court has authority to address constitutional challenge | Court lacks authority over facial constitutional challenge under statutes | Issue not discussed or resolved by the Veterans Court |
| Development of constitutional argument | Pro se argument should be liberally construed | Argument not fully developed, should not be considered | Veterans Court did not rely on lack of development or consider pro se status |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Collins, 130 F.4th 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (addresses appellate jurisdiction in reviewing legal challenges to VA statutes)
- Martin v. McDonald, 761 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (authority to determine if Veterans Court’s decision rests on a legal error)
- Acree v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (remand appropriate when decision may rest on legal error)
- Colantonio v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (vacating and remanding when legal error is possible in administrative review)