Viegas v. Shinseki
2013 WL 363004, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2297, 705 F.3d 1374 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 38 U.S.C. § 1151(a)(1), a veteran's additional disability is "caused by" hospital care or medical treatment furnished by the Department of Veterans Affairs if the injury occurs in a VA facility due to the VA's negligence in maintaining equipment necessary for that care, regardless of whether it stemmed directly from the actions of VA medical personnel.
Facts:
- John L. Viegas served in the United States Army from November 1965 to November 1967.
- After his military service, Viegas sustained an injury in a diving accident, which resulted in "incomplete" quadriplegia.
- In May 2004, Viegas participated in a prescribed aquatic therapy session at a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center in Palo Alto, California.
- After the therapy, while Viegas was in a restroom located within the VA facility, a grab bar he was using to lift himself into his wheelchair came loose from the wall, causing him to fall to the ground.
- As a result of the fall, Viegas sustained injuries to both his upper and lower extremities.
- Viegas's medical condition deteriorated significantly after his fall; prior to the incident, he could sometimes walk with a walker, but afterward, he could only stand with assistance.
Procedural Posture:
- In July 2004, John L. Viegas filed a claim for section 1151 benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs, asserting severe injury from his fall in the VA restroom.
- A VA regional office denied Viegas's claim, concluding he was not in direct VA care at the time of his fall.
- Viegas appealed the regional office's decision to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which affirmed the denial, stating benefits are available only if an additional disability directly results from the actual provision of hospital care, medical or surgical treatment, or examination furnished by the VA.
- Viegas then appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court).
- The Veterans Court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that Viegas's injury, though occurring in a VA facility, was not directly caused by "hospital care, medical or surgical treatment, or examination furnished by the VA" and therefore was not covered by section 1151.
- Viegas subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
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 38 U.S.C. § 1151(a)(1) require that a veteran's additional disability be directly caused by the actions of VA medical personnel, or does it also apply to injuries sustained in a VA facility due to the VA's negligence in maintaining equipment essential for providing medical care?
Opinions:
Majority - Mayer, Circuit Judge
No, 38 U.S.C. § 1151(a)(1) does not require that a veteran's additional disability be directly caused by the actions of VA medical personnel; it also applies to injuries sustained in a VA facility due to the VA's negligence in maintaining equipment essential for providing medical care. The court found no language in the statute mandating that an injury be "directly" caused by the "actual" provision of medical care by VA personnel. To the contrary, section 1151(a)(1) uses disjunctive language, stating that a disability must be "caused by" hospital care or medical treatment provided "either by a Department employee or in a Department facility." This indicates Congress intended to cover both direct actions of VA employees and treatment-related incidents occurring in VA-controlled premises due to VA negligence. The court reasoned that equipment like grab bars are a necessary component of the health care services for disabled veterans, without which many would be unable to access VA medical care. Viegas's injury was not a "remote consequence" but directly resulted from the VA's failure to properly install and maintain equipment necessary for his treatment. Citing Brown v. Gardner, the court reiterated that any ambiguity in veterans' benefits statutes must be resolved in the veteran's favor and that the statute simply requires a "causal connection." The 1996 amendment, which added a "proximate cause" requirement related to VA fault or unforeseeable events, did not impose additional restrictions on the original "caused by" causation element. Congress's deliberate choice not to insert terms like "direct" when modifying "cause" further supported this interpretation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the interpretation of "caused by" under 38 U.S.C. § 1151, extending its reach beyond direct medical interventions to encompass injuries resulting from the VA's negligence in maintaining essential facility infrastructure that facilitates medical care. It reinforces the well-established pro-veteran interpretive canon, emphasizing that statutory ambiguities are resolved in the veteran's favor. The ruling is important for future cases as it establishes that the physical environment and ancillary equipment within VA facilities, when integral to providing care, fall within the scope of compensable injury events, potentially expanding the VA's liability for premises-related negligence.
