GovernmentExecutive.com

A veteran injured during a botched operation at a Veterans Affairs Department hospital is eligible for the same disability benefits he would receive if he had been injured in action, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Wednesday.

Dee Kilpatrick served on active duty in the Army from 1960 to 1963, making him eligible for health care at facilities run by the Veterans Affairs Department. In April 1994, he entered a VA hospital for an operation to repair a ruptured spinal disc. The injury was unrelated to his military service.

Kilpatrick emerged from the surgery unable to walk or retain control over certain bodily functions - uncommonly severe complications for that type of operation. As a result, Veterans Affairs determined he was 100 percent disabled and granted him monthly disability payments.

Kilpatrick later applied for special housing benefits available to disabled veterans under Title 38 of the United States Code, but a regional VA office denied his request. The Board of Veterans Appeals upheld the denial, claiming that Kilpatrick was not entitled to the housing benefits since he was not injured during active duty service.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims overturned the board's ruling, on the basis that the United States Code includes a provision for veterans disabled as a result of treatment at a VA hospital.

In a May 7 decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Veterans Court decision, ruling that Title 38, Section 2101(a) of the United States Code entitled Kilpatrick to the same benefits he would have received had he been injured during military action.

Dee W. Kilpatrick v. Veterans Affairs Department, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (02-7356), May 7, 2003

Taking Care of Baby

A Navy worker is entitled to reimbursement for both a personal trip and travel to seek medical attention, the Board of Contract Appeals ruled recently.

When Lena Hagedorn, an employee at the naval station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, developed complications during a pregnancy in spring 2000, Navy doctors decided she would need to leave the station in order to receive appropriate medical attention. Her commander gave her permission to travel to Panama, where her family lived, for care.

Hagedorn left Guantanamo Bay as recommended by her Navy physician, and received adequate treatment. She returned to the Guantanamo station about two years later.

The Board of Contract Appeals determined that under the Defense Department's Joint Travel Regulations, Hagedorn's commander could reimburse her for the trip to seek medical attention, as long as the secretary of the Navy decided that the services she needed were unavailable in Guantanamo Bay.

But a representative of the Navy secretary declined to make this decision, on grounds that Hagedorn had two other options for getting a free trip off the base. He claimed she was eligible for "environmental and morale leave," available to Defense employees stationed in undesirable locations. In addition, by agreeing to stay at her job for another tour of duty, Hagedorn would have qualified for "renewal agreement travel," where the department reimburses overseas employees for one personal trip between tours of duty.

In an April 30 decision, the Board of Contract Appeals rejected the Navy secretary's arguments. Hagedorn was not eligible for a personal trip at the time she requested the medical trip and her eligibility for morale leave did not preclude her from taking health care travel as well, the board said.

"When Hagedorn's pregnancy became complicated, she needed specialized obstetrical care immediately, well before the next time that she might feel well enough to take ordinary leave," the board ruled.

Lena E. Hagedorn v. Navy, General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (15948-TRAV), April 30, 2003