Rackley v. McDonough
21-1705
| Fed. Cir. | Jul 16, 2021Background
- Terry Miller served on active duty (Dec 1977–Mar 1979); he married Pamela Rackley in Nov 1977; they had a child in Sep 1978 and divorced in Jul 1981.
- Miller died on June 3, 2000. In March 2017 Rackley filed for VA surviving-spouse benefits based on his death.
- VA Regional Office denied the claim; the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied it in Apr 2019; the Veterans Court affirmed in Nov 2020.
- Rackley argued she qualifies as a "surviving spouse" because (1) separation was due to Miller’s misconduct, (2) they had a child, and (3) Miller failed to support the child; she also asserted a constitutional liberty violation.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to hear Rackley’s appeal from the Veterans Court, given statutory limits on reviewing factual findings and applications of law to fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the spousal-abuse exception to continuous cohabitation creates an exception to the requirement that the spouse be married to the veteran at death | Rackley: separation due to Miller’s misconduct should excuse continuous cohabitation and allow surviving-spouse status despite divorce | Veterans Court/Federal Respondent: Haynes controls; the abuse exception applies only to separated (not divorced) spouses, so no exception | Held: Application of Haynes; no statutory basis to extend exception to divorced spouse; Veterans Court applied existing law to facts |
| Whether having a child and the veteran’s failure to support the child affects surviving-spouse status | Rackley: existence of a child and Miller’s failure to satisfy child-support obligations should affect eligibility | Veterans Court/Respondent: No statutory or regulatory basis to convert those facts into an exception to the requirement of being married at the time of death | Held: Those factual claims do not create a legal exception; Veterans Court’s factual application stands |
| Whether the decision raises a cognizable constitutional claim | Rackley: Veterans Court decision violated her constitutional liberty | Respondent: Characterizing the claim as constitutional does not create jurisdiction absent a real constitutional question | Held: No actual constitutional question presented; labeling does not confer jurisdiction |
| Whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review the appeal | Rackley: framed arguments as statutory/regulatory/constitutional challenges | Respondent: 38 U.S.C. § 7292 limits review to legal questions; court cannot review factual determinations or law-into-fact applications absent a constitutional issue | Held: Court lacks jurisdiction because the appeal challenges application of law to facts; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Haynes v. McDonald, 785 F.3d 614 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (spousal-abuse exception applies only to separated, not divorced, spouses)
- Cook v. Principi, 353 F.3d 937 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (limits on Federal Circuit review of Veterans Court factual determinations)
- Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (labeling an argument constitutional does not by itself confer jurisdiction)