Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
“Not Reasonably Debatable”: The Problems With Single-Judge Decisions By The Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, James Ridgway
“Not Reasonably Debatable”: The Problems With Single-Judge Decisions By The Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, James Ridgway
James D. Ridgway
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) has statutory authority—unique among the federal appellate courts—to allow individual judges to decide appeals. As the CAVC completes the first quarter century of operations since its creation, this article examines the court’s use of this authority. Based upon two years of data developed and analyzed by the authors, this article concludes that outcome variance in single-judge decisions is a serious problem at the CAVC. Not only is there a substantial difference in the outcomes of appeals assigned to the different judges, but there are clear examples of decisions that violate the …
Toward A Less Adversarial Relationship Between Chevron And Gardner, James Ridgway
Toward A Less Adversarial Relationship Between Chevron And Gardner, James Ridgway
James D. Ridgway
In twenty-five years of judicial review of veterans benefits claims, the courts have failed to reconcile the interpretive canons of veteran friendliness and deference to the agency’s policy making role. This article argues that the courts must develop a coherent relationship between these doctrines by recognizing that each are core values of veterans law. First, it explores the history and nature of these two doctrines that are central to veterans law. Then, It considers how the canons are situated in the spectrum of fact- and value-based judicial review. Ultimately, separation-of-powers principles and the legislative history of the Veterans Judicial Review …
Recovering An Institutional Memory: The Origins Of The Modern Veterans Benefits System, 1914 To 1958, James Ridgway
Recovering An Institutional Memory: The Origins Of The Modern Veterans Benefits System, 1914 To 1958, James Ridgway
James D. Ridgway
Tracing statutory and regulatory history in veterans law can be exceptionally difficult. Although judicial review has only been available for a little more than two decades, the modern veterans benefits system evolved -- more by happenstance than design -- from the system that was originally adopted to serve WWI veterans. Tracing key statutory and regulatory provisions to their true origin is not easy because much of the legislative and regulatory history for veterans law provisions in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations is simply incorrect. Moreover, even if a provision were traced past the false origins …
Fresh Eyes On Persistent Issues: Veterans Law At The Federal Circuit In 2012, James Ridgway
Fresh Eyes On Persistent Issues: Veterans Law At The Federal Circuit In 2012, James Ridgway
James D. Ridgway
Since the advent of judicial review of veterans claims over twenty years ago, representatives of veterans have chafed at the jurisdictional limits of the Federal Circuit. They have struggled to draw the court into a more active role in both reviewing individual decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) and prodding the CAVC toward reversing the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) more frequently. In 2012, there was a broad yet unsuccessful effort by veterans representatives to revisit the limits of judicial review. This article examines that effort, and explains that the dissatisfaction that …
Mind Reading And The Art Of Drafting Medical Opinions In Veterans Benefits Claims, James Ridgway
Mind Reading And The Art Of Drafting Medical Opinions In Veterans Benefits Claims, James Ridgway
James D. Ridgway
Once upon a time, deciding veterans benefits claims was simple and logical, although not perfect. Prior to the institution of judicial review, when a veteran filed a disability claim, the relevant records would be gathered and given to a panel of medical and legal experts. The experts would each bring their own specialized knowledge to the discussion and issue a decision that applied medical science and applicable law to the facts of the case. Such decisions may well have been correct as to the science and the law, but they were impossible to verify in the absence of any stated …