Van Dermark v. McDonough, 57 F.4th 1374

Peter Van Dermark, a veteran rated totally and permanently service-disabled by VA, received emergency cardiac treatment in Thailand in 2016 and 2018 (non–service‑connected conditions).
He submitted claims under 38 U.S.C. §§ 1728 and 1725 seeking reimbursement or direct payment to providers for those foreign emergency treatments.
VA’s Office of Community Care and the Board denied the claims, invoking 38 U.S.C. § 1724(a), which prohibits VA from "furnish[ing] hospital . . . care or medical services" outside any State except in enumerated circumstances.
The Veterans Court assumed the treatments were emergency care but held § 1724(a)’s "furnish" bars VA payment abroad and that §§ 1728/1725 do not override that prohibition.
On appeal to the Federal Circuit, the parties stipulated the factual record; the sole contested legal questions were statutory interpretation of "furnish" and whether §§ 1728/1725 displace § 1724(a).
The Federal Circuit affirmed: "furnish" in § 1724(a) encompasses reimbursement/direct payment for care abroad, and §§ 1728/1725 do not override § 1724(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does "furnish hospital...care or medical services" in § 1724(a) include VA payments/reimbursement for care provided by non‑VA providers abroad?	Van Dermark: "Furnish" should not be read to include payment/reimbursement (particularly absent a VA contract with providers).	Government: "Furnish" includes "provide for," i.e., funding or reimbursing treatment provided by others; historical context and VA practice support the broad meaning.	Held: "Furnish" covers payment/reimbursement for care provided by others; § 1724(a) therefore bars VA payment for non‑service‑connected treatment abroad.
Do §§ 1728 and 1725 authorize VA reimbursement/payment for emergency non‑VA treatment abroad, overriding § 1724(a)?	Van Dermark: Later statutes authorizing reimbursement/direct payment for emergency treatment govern and permit payment even if treatment occurred abroad.	Government: §§ 1728/1725 contain no geographic grant and can be harmonized with § 1724(a); no clear congressional intent to override § 1724.	Held: No conflict; harmonization yields that §§ 1728/1725 do not apply to treatment abroad outside § 1724(b)’s exceptions; they do not override § 1724(a).

New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532 (2019) (courts look to a term's ordinary meaning at time of enactment).
Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019) (a statutory term can have different meanings in different provisions based on context).
Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (courts must attempt to harmonize statutes and give effect to both when possible).
Van Dermark v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 204 (2021) (Veterans Court opinion affirming VA's denial and interpreting "furnish" to include payments).