Brown, Secretary Of Veterans Affairs v. Gardner

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Joseph M. Hannon, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)
Edward C. DuMont (on behalf of the Petitioner)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
93-1128
Petitioner: 
Brown, Secretary Of Veterans Affairs
Respondent: 
Gardner
Opinion: 
513 U.S. 115 (1994)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Brown, Secretary Of Veterans Affairs v. Gardner , 513 U.S. 115 (1994)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1128)
Facts of the Case: 

Fred P. Gardner was treated in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility. Afterwards, he experienced weakness in his left leg, allegedly a result of the surgery. He claimed disability benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151, which requires the VA to pay disability compensation if an injury occurs as a result of or is worsened by treatment. The VA and the Board of Veterans Appeals denied the claim, stating that the statute, as interpreted by VA regulation 38 CFR 3.358 (c)(3), requires that the claimant prove that the injury arose due to negligence or error by the VA facility. The Court of Veterans Appeals reversed the decision on the ground that the fault-or-accident requirement in 38 CFR 3.358 was not warranted by Section 1151. The decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Question: 

Is Department of Veterans Affairs regulation 38 CFR 3.358 (c)(3), which restricts disability compensation to injuries caused by accidents or negligence during surgery, consistent with the controlling statute, 38 U.S.C. 1151?

Conclusion: 

No. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice David Souter, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision and ruled for Gardner. The Court held that Section 1151 contains no language requiring proof of fault, and it rejected the Government's claims that the requirement was implicit in the language of the statute. The Court acknowledged the 60-year longevity of the regulation and the post-1934 legislative silence on the issue, but neither concern could overcome the plain language of Section 1151.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Gardner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 1151

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote the majority opinion
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice David H. Souter