The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 12 that a federal law’s six-year statute of limitations that often applies in military-related claims does not apply to retroactive claims for combat-related special compensation (CRSC).
A statute of limitations blocks claims after a specified time elapses following an injury.
The new ruling means that a veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and individuals participating in his class action may still file for benefits beyond the six-year cutoff.
In court papers, the veteran who filed the lawsuit estimated that thousands of veterans are affected.
In a class action, one or more plaintiffs sue on behalf of a “class,” or a larger group of people who claim to have suffered the same injury because of a defendant.
Federal and state court rules govern whether a class action gets certified and is allowed to proceed.
The Barring Act (31 U.S.C. 3702) created a default system for settlements for certain claims filed against the government, Thomas wrote.
Settlement refers to when the government renders a final administrative determination about its liability on a claim.
The Barring Act imposes a six-year statute of limitations on most claims but includes an exception when “‘another law’ confers authority to settle a claim” with the government, in which case the other law displaces the Barring Act’s settlement mechanism, including its limitations period, he wrote.
The question the Supreme Court had to consider was whether a law providing combat-related special compensation to veterans confers authority to settle such claims, he wrote.
“We hold that it does, and thus that the settlement procedures and limitations established under the Barring Act do not apply to claims for CRSC payments,” Thomas wrote.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had previously found that veterans are allowed to seek retroactive combat-related special compensation, but such payments are subject to the Barring Act’s six-year statute of limitations.
The petitioner, Simon A. Soto, enlisted in August 2000 in the U.S. Marine Corps, which operates within the U.S. Department of the Navy.
An Iraq War veteran, Soto served in a mortuary affairs unit during his first two tours.
On one mission, he was traumatized when he participated in recovering “over 300 pieces of five or seven soldiers” who were killed.
Beginning in December 2005, he was treated for what was later diagnosed as PTSD.
In April 2006, he was medically retired from active duty.
After that, Soto was placed on the temporary disability retirement list, which meant he was entitled to military retirement pay.
Later, the Navy removed Soto from the list and awarded him permanent disability retirement, under which he continued to be entitled to military retirement pay, the petition said.
In June 2016, Soto asked the Navy for combat-related special compensation based on his PTSD.
The Navy held that Soto’s PTSD was related to combat, which qualified him for CRSC as of July 2010.
This finding came even though he met the CRSC enrollment criteria as of January 2008, which was the date a law that extended CRSC to medical retirees came into force, the petition said.
This led to the Navy deciding to give Soto just six years of retroactive CRSC payments, covering July 2010 to June 2016. Soto argued in the petition that he is actually entitled to about 8 1/2 years of payments, covering January 2008 to June 2016.
The Navy said that the statute of limitations applies, so to qualify for full retroactive combat-related special compensation payments, a person has to file a CRSC claim within six years of a Department of Veterans Affairs decision that might make a person eligible for CRSC, or by the date the person became entitled to retirement pay—whichever date is most recent.
Filing later than six years after initial eligibility means the person will receive only six years’ entitlement to retroactive payments, according to the petition.
The petition said the federal government “has used this six-year statute of limitations policy to pay no more than six years of retroactive CRSC to thousands of other deserving United States military combat veterans.”
Soto filed a class action in federal district court in Texas in 2017.
The court ruled in his favor in December 2021, finding the relevant statute “has its own settlement mechanism because it defines eligibility for CRSC, helps explain the amount of benefits, and instructs the [Department of Defense] to prescribe procedures and criteria for individuals to apply for CRSC.”
That court held that the CRSC statute was “outside the reach of the Barring Act and—by extension—its six-year statute of limitations,” the petition said.
The court also determined the government owed Soto and other veterans compensation that it had wrongly withheld.
A divided Federal Circuit reversed in February 2024, holding that the statute of limitations in the Barring Act “applies because the CRSC Statute does not contain its own settlement mechanism.”
Thomas wrote that the Federal Circuit’s “focus on the absence of specific words and provisions led it to misinterpret the CRSC statute.”
In its new ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit decision and sent the case back to that court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
