Lexplug logoLexplug

Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Gardner

United States Supreme Court
513 U.S. 115 (1994)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A federal agency regulation is invalid if it imposes requirements, such as proof of fault or accident, that are not supported by the plain language of the controlling statute. A veteran seeking disability benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for an injury resulting from VA medical care is not required to prove that the VA was at fault.


Facts:

  • Fred R. Gardner, a veteran of the Korean conflict, underwent surgery at a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility for a herniated disc unrelated to his military service.
  • Following the surgery, Gardner developed pain and weakness in his left calf, ankle, and foot.
  • Gardner alleged that this new condition was a direct result of the VA surgery.
  • Gardner applied for disability benefits under a statute that compensates veterans for injuries occurring 'as the result of hospitalization, medical or surgical treatment' provided by the VA.

Procedural Posture:

  • Fred R. Gardner filed a claim for disability benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under 38 U.S.C. § 1151.
  • The VA and subsequently the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied Gardner's claim, finding he had not shown his injury was the result of VA fault or an accident as required by VA regulation 38 CFR § 3.358(c)(3).
  • Gardner, as appellant, appealed the denial to the Court of Veterans Appeals.
  • The Court of Veterans Appeals reversed the Board's decision, holding that the fault requirement in the regulation was not authorized by the statute.
  • The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as appellant, appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court of Veterans Appeals.
  • The U.S. Government petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation (38 CFR § 3.358(c)(3)) that requires a veteran to prove their injury resulted from the VA's fault or an accident impose a requirement that is inconsistent with the plain language of the controlling statute (38 U.S.C. § 1151)?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Souter

Yes, the regulation imposes requirements inconsistent with the statute. The plain text of 38 U.S.C. § 1151 does not contain any language requiring a veteran to prove fault on the part of the VA. The court reasoned that the term 'injury' as used in the statute does not inherently connote fault, especially since it is also used to describe a pre-existing condition in the phrase 'aggravation of an injury.' Furthermore, the statutory phrase 'as a result of' establishes a requirement for causation, not fault. The court noted that the statute explicitly mentions the veteran's 'own willful misconduct' as a bar to recovery, and the deliberate omission of any mention of VA fault implies Congress did not intend to require it. Finally, the court rejected the government's arguments for legislative ratification and judicial deference, stating that a long-standing administrative interpretation cannot override the clear and unambiguous language of a statute.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the principle of textualism in statutory interpretation, emphasizing that an agency cannot, through regulation, add substantive requirements that are absent from the plain language of the authorizing statute. It clarifies that judicial deference to an agency's long-standing interpretation is inappropriate when the agency's rule directly contradicts the clear text enacted by Congress. This case provides strong protection for veterans seeking benefits under § 1151, removing a significant evidentiary hurdle (proving VA negligence) and aligning the benefits scheme more with a no-fault compensation system for treatment-related injuries.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Gardner (1994)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"