Sucic v. Wilkie, 921 F.3d 1095

Jack Sucic, a veteran, had service-connected PTSD and sought an earlier effective date for benefits; the Federal Circuit reversed the Veterans Court and remanded for determination of the effective date.
Shortly after the Federal Circuit issued mandate (April 2016), Sucic died (April 13, 2016) before the Veterans Court vacated the Board decision and remanded to the VA.
Several months later, Sucic’s counsel notified the Veterans Court of his death and filed an unopposed motion to recall the judgment and a motion to substitute Sucic’s three adult children as claimants under 38 U.S.C. § 5121A.
The Veterans Court denied substitution, holding that the adult, non-dependent children were not eligible accrued-benefits beneficiaries under 38 U.S.C. § 5121(a)(2)(B).
The adult children appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed the Veterans Court’s denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “the veteran’s children” in 38 U.S.C. § 5121(a)(2)(B) includes non-dependent adult children for accrued benefits/substitution	“Children” in § 5121(a)(2)(B) uses plain meaning and has no age/dependence limits, so non-dependent adult children qualify	§ 101(4)(A) defines “child” for Title 38 as unmarried persons who are minors, permanently incapable of self-support before 18, or students up to 23; that definition applies to § 5121, excluding non-dependent adult children	The term is unambiguous and governed by § 101(4)(A); non-dependent adult children are not eligible accrued-benefits beneficiaries and substitution was properly denied

Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1969 (2016) (start statutory construction analysis with statutory text)
Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (2002) (determine whether statutory language is plain and unambiguous)
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (1997) (statutory inquiry ends if language is unambiguous)
Digital Realty Tr., Inc. v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767 (2018) (follow explicit statutory definitions over ordinary meaning)
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (1995) (avoid readings that render statutory words redundant)
Nat’l Org. of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 809 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (substitution eligibility aligns with those who could pursue an accrued-benefits claim)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference framework to agency interpretations)
King v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., 502 U.S. 215 (1991) (canon that ambiguities in veterans' benefits be construed for beneficiaries)
Cook v. Wilkie, 908 F.3d 813 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (de novo review of Veterans Court statutory interpretation)