The Benefit of the Doubt Doctrine and VA Appeals
What is the benefit of the doubt doctrine and how does it relate to VA appeals? In criminal court, prosecutors must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil courts use a lower standard of evidence. The civil case burden of proof is known as a preponderance of the proof, meaning “more likely than not.” The standard of evidence in VA benefits matters is lower than the civil burden of proof, “at least as likely as not.”
The famous baseball metaphor is that if a runner touches first base at the same time the first baseman catches the ball and steps on first base, the tie goes to the runner. At least as likely as not, or the benefit of the doubt doctrine is essentially the same.
Although the burden of proof is low, an appeals court win is not a sure thing. Unless you have a dedicated VA appeals attorney to advocate for you, the VA’s posse of lawyers can easily outflank even the strongest legal positions. So, an attorney is well worth the investment.
Facts of Gilbert v. Derwinski (1990)
During service in Korea, Gilbert fell while carrying a machine gun, injuring his back. In 1971, he filed a VA disability claim. After a long series of procedural moves, in 1985, the Board of Veterans Appeals upheld a Regional Office’s denial based on a lack of evidence. Gilbert did not prove, to the BVA’s satisfaction, that he had sustained such an injury. Even if he did hurt his back, the BVA characterized the injury as “transitory in nature and resolved without leaving any residual disability.” Furthermore, according to the BVA, Gilbert was not entitled to “the benefit of the doubt.”
Decision
Under the law, if there is any “plausible” way the lower court’s decision was correct, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must uphold the ruling. That is a very high bar to overcome.
In evaluating the BVA’s decision, the CAVC first looked at the conclusory nature of that decision. The BVA simply asserted that Gilbert did not prove his case. The BVA did not say why Gilbert failed to do so. That is a requirement under federal law.
The benefit of the doubt doctrine is also embedded in federal law, according to the CAVC. According to the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, if both sides present equal amounts of credible evidence, “the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant.” In other words, claims are only denied if the preponderance of the evidence is against them. The CAVC linked the benefit of the doubt doctrine with the “high esteem in which our nation holds those who have served in the Armed Services.”
The medical evidence did indeed suggest that Gilbert had not sustained a service-related back injury. But there was lay testimony that Gilbert returned from Korea with a bad back. That approximate balance was enough for the benefit of the doubt rule to kick in.
This rule has some limits. It does not apply in the evidence-gathering phase. So, at Regional Office hearings, Claims Examiners cannot presume that Veterans are entitled to benefits until all evidence is in. Additionally, if the weight of evidence is clearly against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule does not bring things into balance. Instead, the rule is inapplicable in these situations.
Work with Energetic Attorneys
VA disability appeals involve a very low standard of proof. For a free consultation with an experienced Veterans disability lawyer, contact the Cameron Firm, P.C. at 800-861-7262 or fill out the contact box to your right. We are here to represent Veterans nationwide.
This article is for educational and marketing purposes only. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.