The question
Whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims reviews the VA's determination that the evidence on a service-related disability claim is in approximate balance for clear error or de novo.
Bufkin v. Collins
What the Court decided
The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit. It held that the VA's determination that the evidence regarding a service-related disability claim is in approximate balance is a predominantly factual determination that the Veterans Court reviews only for clear error. The benefit-of-the-doubt rule tips the scales toward a veteran when the evidence is in approximate balance, and Section 7261(b)(1) directs the Veterans Court to take due account of the VA's application of that rule under the standards of review in subsection (a). Because assessing whether record evidence is approximately balanced is at most a mixed question that turns primarily on factual work, clear-error review applies.
How the justices split
7-2The Court's opinion
Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett
The opinion held that Section 7261(b)(1) directs the Veterans Court to take due account of the VA's application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule under the standards of review set out in subsection (a). The approximate-balance determination involves two steps: weighing each item of evidence, which is fact-finding reviewed for clear error, and deciding whether the evidence is in approximate balance, which is at most a mixed question. Because that mixed question turns primarily on factual work, the Veterans Court reviews the approximate-balance determination only for clear error.
Dissenting
Jackson, joined by Gorsuch
Jackson dissented, joined by Gorsuch. The syllabus identifies the dissent but does not state its reasoning, so its position cannot be summarized beyond its disagreement with the majority's conclusion that the approximate-balance determination is reviewed only for clear error.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The VA's approximate-balance determination is a predominantly factual determination reviewed only for clear error.
Source: syllabus, Held
Section 7261(b)(1) directs the Veterans Court to take due account of the VA's application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule under the standards of review in subsection (a).
Source: syllabus, Held
Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Gorsuch.
Source: syllabus, lineup
The approximate-balance determination is at most a mixed question whose review standard depends on whether answering it entails primarily legal or factual work.
Source: syllabus, Held