In the landmark case 596 U.S. ___ (2022) v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Kevin R. George, Petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed a pivotal issue concerning veterans' disability benefits. This case centered around whether an invalidated regulation, subsequently deemed contrary to law, could serve as grounds for collateral relief under the statutory exception of "clear and unmistakable error" (CUE). The parties involved were Kevin R. George, a former Marine Corps member, and Denis R. McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

The Supreme Court held that the invalidation of a Veterans Affairs (VA) regulation after a veteran's benefits decision has become final does not qualify as a "clear and unmistakable error" warranting collateral relief under 38 U.S.C. §§5109A and 7111. The Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, which had previously denied George's claims for revising his benefits decision based on the later invalidation of the regulation initially used to deny his claim.

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced prior cases and regulatory history to support its decision. Notably:

• Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. ___ (2019) – Emphasized that when a term of art is adopted from another legal source, the original context and meaning are retained.
• COOK v. PRINCIPI, 318 F.3d 1334 (2002) – Supported the interpretation of "clear and unmistakable error" as narrowly defined under existing agency practice.
• WAGNER v. PRINCIPI, 370 F.3d 1089 (2004) – Demonstrated that changes in law or interpretation post-decision do not qualify as CUE.
• Veterans' Bureau Regulation No. 187 (1928) and 38 CFR §3.105 (1963) – Provided historical context for the definition and application of CUE within the VA.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning hinged on the interpretation of "clear and unmistakable error" within the statutory framework established by Congress in 1997. The Court concluded that:

• The terms "clear" and "unmistakable" suggest a narrow scope, consistent with historical regulatory interpretations.
• Congress codified an existing regulatory doctrine without altering its foundational principles, meaning that subsequent changes in law or its interpretation do not fall under CUE.
• Historical agency practice explicitly excludes changes in law or interpretation from constituting CUE, reinforcing the narrow application of this exception.
• Applying a later invalidated regulation does not equate to CUE, as the original decision adhered to the regulations in force at the time.

Consequently, the Court determined that George's claim did not meet the stringent criteria required for CUE, as the error was rooted in a change in the interpretation of law rather than a mistake in the original decision-making process.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for veterans seeking to revisit final VA decisions based on subsequent regulatory changes. The ruling:

• Clarifies that CUE remains a narrowly applied exception, limiting its use to genuine and evident administrative mistakes at the time of the original decision.
• Prevents veterans from leveraging later regulatory invalidations to challenge finalized benefits decisions, thereby reinforcing the finality of such decisions.
• Emphasizes the importance of exhausting all direct appeal avenues before seeking collateral relief.
• Sets a precedent that can influence other administrative law contexts where finality and limited exceptions to review are paramount.

While this decision upholds the integrity of the VA's administrative processes, it may also pose challenges for veterans whose claims were adversely affected by regulations later deemed invalid.

Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE)

Clear and Unmistakable Error is a statutory exception that allows for the reconsideration of a final administrative decision. To qualify as CUE, the error must be obviously significant, leaving no room for doubt or alternative interpretation at the time of the original decision.

Collateral Relief

Collateral Relief refers to legal processes that allow individuals to challenge final administrative decisions outside of the standard appellate procedures. It is intended for exceptional cases where traditional appeals do not provide a viable remedy.

Finality of Decisions

The Finality of Decisions principle asserts that once an administrative decision has been fully appealed and no further direct appeals are available, it should be considered conclusive and not subject to additional review except under limited circumstances.

Change in Law or Interpretation

A Change in Law or Interpretation occurs when a statute or regulation is amended or reinterpreted by a court. Such changes reflect a new understanding of legal provisions but do not retroactively alter the legal landscape as it existed at the time of prior decisions.

The Supreme Court's decision in George v. McDonough underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the stability and finality of administrative decisions while recognizing the limited scope of exceptions like CUE. By affirming that subsequent invalidation of regulations does not constitute CUE, the Court reinforces the necessity for veterans to navigate the appeals process thoroughly before seeking collateral relief. This judgment balances the need for administrative efficiency and finality with the protection of veterans' rights, setting a clear boundary for future claims based on regulatory changes.