“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at Stake in this case?
An Air Force veteran challenged a determination that she was only 10% disabled even though she had been discharged for unfitness for duty and later given a 40% disability rating by VA.
What happened in this case?
Carissa Thompson enlisted in the US Air Force in 2002. While she was on authorized leave the following summer, she suffered a serious injury when “an all-terrain vehicle she was riding overturned and fell on her.” She received treatment, including “narcotics for pain.” Although she returned to duty for several years, a physical examination board determined in 2004 that she was “unfit for duty.” She was discharged in 2005, although her disability rating was only 10%. This was less than the 30% rating required for a servicemember to receive retirement assistance, which includes “healthcare for her and her family, monthly military pension payment, and access to a base’s medical facilities.”
Thompson continued to get treatment and evaluation from the Veterans Administration. And she continued to suffer severe back pain and limitation of activity. Later in 2005 and in 2008, the VA gave her a 40% disability rating, but she continued to get only limited retirement benefits from the Air Force. Thompson sought a review of and change to the 10% disability rating, but the administrative board and later the Secretary of the Air Force determined not to change the rating. She filed suit in federal court, which ruled against her on summary judgment, and she appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
In July, Trump Fourth Circuit judges Marvin Quattlebaum and Allison Rushing issued a 2-1 ruling that rejected Thompson’s appeal and upheld the ruling against her in Thompson v Hegseth. The majority found substantial evidence to support the board’s decision and that it was not “arbitrary or capricious,” as required by law. Biden judge DeAndrea Bejamin dissented.
Why did Judge Benjamin dissent?
Judge Benjamin strongly disagreed with the majority, finding the board’s 10% recommendation “arbitrary and capricious,” and the majority’s ruling a “rubber stamp to the agency’s action.” Benjamin carefully reviewed the record, including the tests and examinations given to Thompson. She found that the review board had failed to account for the strong evidence in Thompson’s favor, particularly the VA examination and disability rating. As Benjamin concluded, it is “inconceivable how a servicemember who was thrown from and run over by an all-terrain vehicle” could “only be ‘10% disabled.’” The Air Force should have been directed to reevaluate Thompson’s claim.
Why is the decision harmful?
The decision by Trump judges Quattlebaum and Rushing obviously harms Carissa Thompson and her efforts to obtain necessary disability assistance. It also sets a bad precedent concerning evaluation of Armed Forces disability claims, particularly in the Fourth Circuit, which includes Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Maryland. In addition, it illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.