Viegas v. Shinseki
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2297
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Viegas, a U.S. Army veteran with incomplete quadriplegia, challenges a VA benefits denial under 38 U.S.C. §1151.
- In May 2004, during VA Palo Alto aquatic therapy, a restroom grab bar allegedly loosened, causing Viegas to fall and worsen injuries.
- In July 2004, he filed an §1151 claim; VA denied benefits because he was not in direct VA care at the time of the fall, and the Board affirmed this reasoning.
- The Veterans Court held the injury was not caused directly by hospital care or medical treatment furnished by the VA, affirming denial.
- The issue before the Federal Circuit is whether §1151’s causation requirement extends beyond direct causation to include injuries occurring in a VA facility due to VA negligence.
- The court reverses and remands, holding §1151 does not require direct causation by VA personnel and that the injury arose from the VA’s failure to install/maintain treatment-related equipment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What causation standard governs §1151(a)(1)? | Viegas: causation occurs if VA negligence facilitates treatment. | Shinseki: causation must be directly tied to VA care or treatment. | Causation need not be direct; relationship through VA care or premises suffices. |
| Does §1151 cover injuries from equipment failures during VA-provided treatment within a facility? | Viegas: injury resulted from VA’s failure to maintain treatment equipment. | Government: §1151 covers only direct care or treatment injuries, not remote consequences. | Yes; injuries caused by the VA’s failure to install/maintain equipment integral to treatment are within §1151. |
| Is Gardner Jacksonian reasoning applicable to expanding §1151’s scope? | Viegas: broader interpretation consistent with Gardner and Jackson. | Government: restricts §1151 to direct care causes; limits are consistent with prior interpretations. | Court adopts expansive interpretation consistent with Gardner and Jackson. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. Brown, 513 U.S. 115 (U.S. Supreme Court 1994) (rejects fault-only limitation; requires causal connection)
- Jackson v. Nicholson, 433 F.3d 822 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (hospitalization-related injuries can stem from VA premises; not limited to VA staff actions)
- Roberson v. Shinseki, 607 F.3d 809 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (discusses scope of §1151 and causation under fault/no-fault frameworks)
- Bartlett v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 328 (Vet. App. 2011) (treatment-related definitions and §1151 interpretation guidance)
- Sweitzer v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 503 (Vet. App. 1993) (dissent emphasizing VA control over safety on premises)
- Galloway v. Baton Rouge Gen. Hosp., 602 So. 2d 1003 (La. 1992) (hospital duty to patient safety and reasonable care)