Service Women's Action Network v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3976
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioners (Service Women’s Action Network and Vietnam Veterans of America) asked the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to promulgate a new regulation (§ 3.304(g)) to allow a veteran’s lay testimony alone to establish occurrence of an in‑service stressor when PTSD is alleged to have been caused by military sexual trauma (MST), absent clear and convincing contrary evidence.
- Current 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) requires (1) a medical diagnosis of PTSD, (2) a medical nexus to an in‑service stressor, and (3) credible supporting evidence that the stressor occurred; subsections for combat, POW, and fear-of-hostile-activity allow lay testimony alone after a threshold showing, while the MST subsection requires corroboration (examples listed non‑exhaustively).
- Petitioners argued the corroboration requirement unfairly burdens MST claimants (who often do not report incidents), producing lower grant rates, and asked for a presumption similar to combat/POW rules; they also alleged the denial was arbitrary and violated equal protection.
- The Secretary denied the petition, explaining that § 3.304(f)(5) already accommodates underreporting by permitting many types of corroborating evidence, describing VA training and outreach to improve MST adjudication, and noting grant-rate increases for MST claims after training.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed under the highly deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard for denials of petitions for rulemaking and upheld the Secretary’s denial as reasoned; it also rejected petitioners’ equal protection challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Secretary’s denial of the petition for rulemaking was arbitrary or capricious | VA’s corroboration rule for MST lacks justification given underreporting and results in lower grant rates; VA failed to address the problem, so rulemaking is warranted | Existing § 3.304(f)(5) already addresses underreporting by allowing many non‑service‑record corroborating sources; VA training and policy changes improved adjudication and grant rates | Denial not arbitrary or capricious — Secretary provided adequate factual and policy explanations and the court defers under narrow review of agency rulemaking refusal |
| Whether the denial violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment | The rule disparately impacts women (MST more common among women) and survivors of MST, so VA must meet heightened scrutiny or lack a rational basis | The regulation is gender neutral (both men and women can have MST); the distinction between MST and other stressors is rational because MST can occur anywhere and lacks a specific contextual threshold like combat or POW status | No equal protection violation — no showing of discriminatory purpose; classification between MST and non‑MST PTSD is rational |
Key Cases Cited
- Preminger v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 632 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing VA denials of petitions for rulemaking under APA arbitrary-and-capricious review)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (principles on judicial review of agency rulemaking decisions)
- WWHT, Inc. v. FCC, 656 F.2d 807 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (deference to agency decisions not to institute rulemaking where review is narrow)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez, 532 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (court’s role in assessing whether agency employed reasoned decisionmaking)
- United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (exceedingly persuasive justification required where government intentionally discriminates on basis of sex)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (rational‑basis review for classifications not involving suspect classes)
- Moran v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (requirements for establishing combat-related PTSD stressor)
- Stone v. Nicholson, 480 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (treatment of lay testimony as supporting evidence for service-connection claims)