Philbrook v. McDonough
15 F.4th 1117
| Fed. Cir. | 2021Background
- Veteran Gary Philbrook served 2000–2004 and received service-connected disability compensation for PTSD.
- In April 2011 he stipulated to a judgment of "guilty except for insanity" on a felony and was committed to the Oregon State Hospital under the Psychiatric Security Review Board for up to 20 years.
- While confined at the hospital he applied for Total Disability based on Individual Unemployability (TDIU); a VA regional office denied the claim on the merits and the Board denied TDIU as a matter of law under 38 U.S.C. § 5313(c) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.341(b).
- Section 5313(c) bars assignment of TDIU "during any period during which the veteran is incarcerated in a Federal, State, or local penal institution or correctional facility for conviction of a felony."
- The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board, treating the state hospital confinement as "incarceration in a correctional facility." The Federal Circuit reversed, holding the Oregon State Hospital is not a "penal institution or correctional facility" under § 5313(c), and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confinement at a state mental hospital following a "guilty except for insanity" judgment is "incarcerated in a... penal institution or correctional facility for conviction of a felony" under 38 U.S.C. § 5313(c) | Philbrook: confinement at a mental hospital is not incarceration in a penal or correctional facility; § 5313(c) therefore does not bar TDIU | Secretary/VA: commitment under a criminal judgment qualifies as incarceration in a correctional facility, so § 5313(c) bars TDIU | Court: No. The Oregon State Hospital is not a "penal institution or correctional facility" under § 5313(c); remanded for further proceedings on TDIU eligibility |
| Whether the 2006 amendment (adding "correctional facility") or legislative history broadens § 5313(c) to cover mental hospitals or civil commitments | Philbrook: the 2006 amendment was a technical clarification to include private prisons, not to expand coverage to mental hospitals; legislative history does not support treating mental hospitals as correctional facilities; analogous statutes show Congress would have been explicit | Secretary/VA: legislative purpose of preventing duplicate taxpayer support supports a broad reading to bar benefits while the veteran is supported by a public institution | Court: Rejected the broad reading. The amendment addressed private prisons, not mental hospitals; legislative history does not demonstrate Congress intended to include mental institutions in § 5313(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- Philbrook v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 342 (Vet. App. 2020) (Veterans Court decision at issue affirming statutory bar)
- Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (discusses congressional purpose behind § 5313(c))
- Wanless v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 337 (Vet. App. 2004) (Veterans Court decision that raised private-prison coverage question)
- Prenzler v. Derwinski, 928 F.2d 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (standard of review for statutory and regulatory interpretation)