The federal court of appeals previously ruled that special compensation payments were capped at the six-year mark.
On April 28, the Supreme Court considered whether the federal government could block combat-related special compensation for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) six years later.
Veterans are permitted to seek retrospective combat-related special compensation (CRSC), but the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that such payments are subject to the Prohibition Act (31 USC 3702), which has a six-year restriction law.
The Supreme Court considered whether the CRSC Act (10 USC Section 1413) which approves such compensation includes a way to resolve claims that would replace the Prohibition Act.
A settlement refers to the case in which the government provides a final administrative decision regarding liability for a claim.
In one mission, he was hurt when he took part in recovering “more than 300 pieces of five or seven soldiers” who were killed. From December 2005 he was treated with a later diagnosis of PTSD. In April 2006, he retired from active duty medically.
Related Stories
He was later entitled to a military retirement benefit as SOTO was on the temporary disability retirement list. The Navy then removed Soto from the list, awarding him a permanent disability retirement, under which he continued to grant the right to military retirement salary, the petition said.
In June 2016, Soto asked the Navy for a CRSC based on his PTSD.
The Navy determined that Soto’s PTSD was related to combat and was qualified for the CRSC as of July 2010. The findings were the day the law extended to medical retirements came into effect, despite meeting the CRSC registration criteria as of January 2008.
This has led the Navy to provide SOTO with a six-year retroactive CRSC payment. It covers July 2010 to June 2016. Soto actually claims in the petition that it will pay for approximately eight and a half years, covering January 2008 to June 2016.
The Navy stated that, as the law of restrictions applies, it is necessary to file a CRSC request within six years when a person can qualify for a CRSC in order to qualify for a full retroactive CRSC payment.
According to the petition, filing six years after initial eligibility means that the person will only receive six years of eligibility for retroactive payments.
The petition said the federal government “used the last six-year restriction law to retroactively pay thousands of US military combat veterans with retroactive CRSCs of up to six years.”
Soto filed a class action lawsuit proposed in 2017 in U.S. District Court in Texas.
The court ruled in favour of December 2021 and found that the relevant laws “have their own settlement mechanisms to define eligibility for the CRSC, explain the amount of benefits, and direct (Domestic Defense) to specify procedures and standards for applying to the CRSC.”
The court held that the CRSC Act was “outside the scope of the prohibition law and is a six-year restriction law by extension,” the petition said. The court also held that the government had mistakenly withheld compensation for Soto and other veterans.
The Federal Circuit, which was divided in February 2024, was overturned, and the prohibition law was found to be “applicable because the CRSC Act does not include its own settlement mechanism.”
However, Soto argues that CRSC claims are not subject to that time limit. Because “the CRSC Act includes its own settlement mechanism without providing its own time limit,” Flynn said.
“Returning back 200 years, all sorts of military salaries and benefits claims, including retired wages, have been settled under the (Prohibition Act) and its predecessors, and since 1940 those salaries have been covered by the time bar,” she said.
Up to six other military compensation programs could be affected if the court ignores the six-year restrictions and rules that support SOTO.
“We are not aware of any other military pay or compensation laws that open the department like that,” Flynn said.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor asked the size of the six programs.
“What is the degree of responsibility the government is interested in here?” she asked.
Flynn said the benefits of death rewards, which could run to $100,000 per survivor, could be affected, as well as basic needs allowances and disability retirements.
Soto’s lawyer Tacy Flint said the case “starts and ends with texts in the Special Combat Relations Act. The prohibition law does not apply as the law grants (military sector) authorities to settle CRSC claims.”
The idea that the court “when it is sufficient to overcome the prohibition law under this law, the idea is that if it is sufficient to overcome the barn door and avoid a very important law to protect the Department of Public Treasury is that.
Flint said both the Uniform Services and the Reemployment Rights Act and the Postal Services Act are not limited if a request is filed.
Judge Samuel Alito asked why there are exceptions to the CRSC decision.
“It may have motivated Congress to think about it… Generally, we want to have a restrictive law for filing a claim against the government or many other things, but in this particular situation we don’t want that?”
The Supreme Court is expected to rule Soto v. United States by the end of June.
