Supreme Court to Examine Military Time Limit Argument in Veteran’s PTSD Case

January 22, 2025 TruthUSA

A federal appeals court has determined that special compensation payments are limited to a maximum of six years.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case regarding whether the federal government can terminate combat-related special compensation for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder after a period of six years.

On January 17, the justices approved the petition in the case of Soto v. United States through an unsigned order, with no dissent from any justices. The court provided no detailed rationale for its agreement. As of now, oral arguments for the case have yet to be set.

While veterans are eligible to seek retroactive combat-related special compensation (CRSC), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed that such payments are governed by the federal Barring Act, which includes a six-year statute of limitations.

The Supreme Court’s review will assess whether the CRSC statute, outlined in federal law as 10 U.S.C. Section 1413a, includes a process for settling claims that supersedes the Barring Act.

In this context, a settlement signifies a final administrative determination by the government regarding its liability related to a claim.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), historically referred to as “shell shock” or “combat fatigue,” manifests in individuals who have experienced or witnessed traumatic events, according to the American Psychiatric Association.

“This can be perceived as emotionally or physically damaging or life-threatening, impacting mental, physical, social, and/or spiritual health,” as stated on the association’s website.

“Individuals with PTSD may have intense, distressing thoughts and emotions linked to their traumatic experiences that persist long after the event has concluded. They may re-experience the incident through flashbacks or nightmares, and often contend with feelings of sadness, fear, or anger, as well as feelings of isolation or estrangement from others.”

The petitioner, Simon A. Soto, enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in August 2000, operating under the U.S. Department of the Navy. Soto, a veteran of the Iraq War, served in a mortuary affairs unit during his initial two tours, tasked with “searching for, recovering, and processing the remains of war casualties,” according to the petition.

One of his missions became a source of trauma when he helped recover “over 300 pieces of five or seven soldiers” who were killed. By December 2005, he began treatment for what was later diagnosed as PTSD, and he was medically retired from active duty in April 2006.

Subsequently, Soto was placed on the temporary disability retirement list, making him eligible for military retirement pay. The Navy later transitioned Soto to permanent disability retirement, enabling him to continue receiving military retirement pay, per the petition.

Following his PTSD diagnosis, he submitted an application to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for service-related disability benefits. By June 2009, the department assigned him a 50 percent disability rating for PTSD effective from April 2006, a 30 percent rating from November 2006, and a 100 percent rating from December 2009.

According to the VA website, a disability rating is determined “based on the severity of your service-connected condition” and is crucial for “deciding the monthly disability compensation you’ll receive, along with your eligibility for other VA benefits.”

In June 2016, Soto petitioned the Navy for CRSC due to his PTSD. CRSC “offers tax-free payments to retired Veterans with combat-related disabilities,” as stated on the website.

To qualify, applicants must be retired, “entitled to or receiving military retirement pay,” possess a VA disability rating of at least 10 percent, and have their Department of Defense “retirement payments reduced by the amount of your VA disability payments.”

The Navy concluded that Soto’s PTSD was combat-related, thus qualifying him for CRSC starting July 2010. This decision occurred despite him meeting the CRSC enrollment requirements as of January 2008, which marked the implementation date of a law extending CRSC benefits to medical retirees, according to the petition.

This resulted in the Navy issuing Soto only six years of retroactive CRSC payments, from July 2010 to June 2016.

Soto claims he is entitled to approximately eight-and-a-half years of payments, spanning January 2008 to June 2016.

The Navy’s stance is that the statute of limitations is applicable, meaning an individual must file a CRSC claim within six years of a VA rating decision that could render them eligible for CRSC or from the date they became entitled to retirement pay—whichever is more recent. Failing to file within six years of initial eligibility limits the individual to six years of retroactive payments.

The petition stated that the federal government “has enforced this six-year statute of limitations policy, limiting thousands of deserving military veterans to just six years of retroactive CRSC payments.”

Soto initiated a proposed class action lawsuit in a federal district court in Texas in 2017, alleging that the government was administering an “unlawful nationwide policy” to restrict retroactive CRSC payments to six years.

The court ruled favorably for him in December 2021, asserting that the statute “has its own settlement mechanism by defining CRSC eligibility, elucidating the benefit amounts, and instructing the [Department of Defense] to establish procedures and criteria for individuals applying for CRSC.”

Furthermore, the court maintained that the CRSC statute was “not subject to the Barring Act and, consequently, its six-year statute of limitations,” according to the petition.

Additionally, the court determined that the government owed Soto and other veterans compensation that was wrongfully withheld.

However, a divided Federal Circuit reversed this decision in February 2024, ruling that the Barring Act’s statute of limitations “applies because the CRSC Statute does not provide a distinct settlement mechanism.”

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court in November 2024, the government argued that the petition should be dismissed since the Federal Circuit’s ruling, which sustained the six-year statute of limitations, was “correct.”

“The CRSC statute does not contain explicit language that authorizes the [Department of Defense] to settle CRSC claims to qualify as an exception to the Barring Act,” then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote.

The Epoch Times contacted Soto’s attorneys, J. Simone Jones and Tacy Flint of Sidley Austin in Chicago, Illinois, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice for comments. No responses were received prior to publication.

Source link