M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual

Last updated

The M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual (hereinafter, "M-21 Manual" or "Manual") details policies and procedures for Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) staff who develop and adjudicate U.S. veterans' disability benefit claims.

Contents

The federal government produces thousands of procedural and policy manuals every year. The M-21 Manual stands out as notable because each year over 400,000 veterans file claims with the Veterans Benefits Administration for disability compensation, financial hardship pensions, vocational rehabilitation services, and burial benefits—with total program net outlays amounting to over $90 billion each year. [1]

Many of those 400,000 veterans and family members, along with veterans service officers; veterans law attorneys; Board of Veterans Appeals attorneys and judges; legal scholars; and federal judges consult the M-21 Manual to better understand VA policies and procedures for all programs administered by the Veterans Benefits Administration. For example, from 1992 through 2019, the Board of Veterans Appeals cited the M21-1 Manual 113,029 times, [2] and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims cited the Manual 4,034 times. [3] [lower-alpha 1] In addition, over 100 scholarly articles, mostly in law review journals, have cited the M21-1 Manual. [4]

American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial, National Mall, Washington, D.C. American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial (7ca6ab6c-7667-4e6b-bcf0-3cb68c219a09).jpg
American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial, National Mall, Washington, D.C.

Features

The M21-1 Manual contains features designed to assist Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) staff and other users.

In-text hyperlinked references

The Manual frequently references statutes, regulations, and case law relevant to the particular policy or procedure discussed therein.

Continuously updated

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) continuously updates the Manual, with the dates of any additions, deletions, or modifications provided within the Manual itself.

Improved usability

The Veterans Benefits Administration has made an effort to improve the usability of the Manual. [5] Beginning in 2015 the agency transferred the Manual from the WARMS (Web Automated Reference Material System) platform [6] [lower-alpha 2] to their KnowVA Knowledge Base. [7]

Case law summaries

The Manual includes a concise synopsis of important veterans law cases decided by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court. [lower-alpha 3]

The M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual does not constitute law, in contrast to statutes, federal regulations, and federal case law. The Department of Veterans Affairs has stated, “[t]he M21-1 is an internal manual used to convey guidance to VA adjudicators. It is not intended to establish substantive rules beyond those contained in statute and regulation.” [8] [9] At the same time, federal courts consult the M-21 Manual to determine if VA's actions conform with their own regulations, policies, and procedures, and to gain insight into the meaning and intent of VA regulations. [10] [11]

Does the M21-1 Manual constitute rule-making subject to review by the Federal Circuit?

Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.svg
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Veterans advocacy organizations such as Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA) [12] have argued that many additions to the M21-1 Manual constitute "interpretative rules" and that the Federal Circuit therefore has jurisdiction to review such changes upon direct appeal by a veteran. [13] The Federal Circuit concluded in 2017 that M2-1 Manual provisions do not fall under the purview of the Court. [14] However, in 2020 the court overruled aspects of that decision in National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Fed. Cir. 2020), a unanimous en banc decision. [15]

In an amicus brief for that 2020 case (NOVA v. Sec'y Veterans Affs.), the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP), Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), and Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) had argued:

Congress require[s] Federal Register publication of all generally applicable interpretive rules ... [the Department of Veterans Affairs cannot] evade section 552(a)(1) by issuing a generally applicable rule in the [M21-1 Adjudication Procedures] Manual. Promulgation of “interpretations of general applicability” via a manual does not make them any less reviewable. If DAV’s [DAV v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Fed. Cir. 2017)] erroneous mutual exclusivity theory survives, DVA [Department of Veterans Affairs] can insulate substantive rules and generally applicable policy statements and interpretations, and avoid pre-enforcement judicial review, simply by promulgating them through the Manual. [16]

In NOVA v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Fed. Cir. 2020), the court stated that the "government also concedes that whether an interpretive rule is actually published in the Federal Register does not dictate whether this court has jurisdiction, as 'VA cannot insulate a rule from pre-enforcement review simply by placing it in the Manual'" and the "VA Manual provision governing knee joint stability … announces VA’s adoption of an interpretive rule establishing a new metric for assessing knee instability claims. It limits VA staff discretion, and, as a practical matter, impacts veteran benefits eligibility for an entire class of veterans." [17]

Prominent M21-1 sections

Some sections of the M21-1 Manual have received significant attention from various groups such as investigatory bodies like the VA Office of Inspector General or General Accountability Office, veterans service organizations, the press, Congress, and others.

Telehealth and telemental health examinations

In February 2020, the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General (VAOIG) issued an audit report titled, Telehealth Public-Use Questionnaires Were Used Improperly to Determine Disability Benefits, which critiqued VBA's enforcement of the M21-1 Manual subsection titled, "Examination Report Requirements: Telehealth and Telemental Health Examinations". [18] [19]

Reorganization of the M21-1 Manual

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) announced in May 2021 that they had initiated a reorganization of the M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual. [20] The agency indicated they intend to “[make] the M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual (M21-1) a more consumable and navigable resource.”

Notes

  1. ↑ Search parameters: with the exact phrase: "M21-1"; anytime, any format, anywhere; Panel Opinions (yes); Single Judge Decisions (yes).
  2. ↑ Note the warning at the top of that web page: "The content found here may be out-of-date. The most recent content is available via KnowVA at http://www.knowva.ebenefits.va.gov/."
  3. ↑ See, e.g., Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008) in the M21-1 Manual.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Department of Veterans Affairs</span> Department of the United States government

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is a Cabinet-level executive branch department of the federal government charged with providing lifelong healthcare services to eligible military veterans at the 170 VA medical centers and outpatient clinics located throughout the country. Non-healthcare benefits include disability compensation, vocational rehabilitation, education assistance, home loans, and life insurance. The VA also provides burial and memorial benefits to eligible veterans and family members at 135 national cemeteries.

In law, an en banc session is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court rather than by one judge or a smaller panel of judges. En banc review is used for unusually complex or important cases or when the court believes there is a particularly significant issue at stake.

In United States patent law, utility is a patentability requirement. As provided by 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use and "useless" otherwise. The majority of inventions are usually not challenged as lacking utility, but the doctrine prevents the patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices such as perpetual motion machines.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) in the United States is a judge and trier of fact who both presides over trials and adjudicates claims or disputes involving administrative law. ALJs can administer oaths, take testimony, rule on questions of evidence, and make factual and legal determinations.

United States federal administrative law encompasses statutes, regulations, rules, common law rulings, and directives issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Executive Office of the President, that together define the extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States government. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. federal government cannot always directly perform their constitutional responsibilities. Specialized powers are therefore delegated to an agency, board, or commission. These administrative governmental bodies oversee and monitor activities in complex areas, such as commercial aviation, medical device manufacturing, and securities markets.

Francis M. Jackson is an American veterans law and personal injury attorney who is also an authority on Social Security disability. He has practiced law since 1977 and is a founding partner in the law firm of Jackson & MacNichol.

Social Security Disability Insurance is a payroll tax-funded federal insurance program of the United States government. It is managed by the Social Security Administration and designed to provide monthly benefits to people who have a medically determinable disability that restricts their ability to be employed. SSDI does not provide partial or temporary benefits but rather pays only full benefits and only pays benefits in cases in which the disability is "expected to last at least one year or result in death." Relative to disability programs in other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the SSDI program in the United States has strict requirements regarding eligibility.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disabled American Veterans</span> Veterans organization

The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) is an organization created in 1920 by World War I veterans for disabled military veterans of the United States Armed Forces that helps them and their families through various means. It was issued a federal charter by Congress in 1932. It currently has over 1 million members. As a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, it is outside the purview of – and therefore not rated by – Charity Navigator. DAV's Employer Identification Number (EIN) is 31–0263158.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims</span> Specialized federal appeals court

The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is a federal court of record that was established under Article I of the United States Constitution, and is thus referred to as an Article I tribunal (court). The court has exclusive national jurisdiction to provide independent federal judicial oversight and review of final decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The United States military formerly excluded gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians from service. In 1993, the United States Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, a law instituting the policy commonly referred to as "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT), which allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to serve as long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation. Although there were isolated instances in which service personnel were met with limited success through lawsuits, efforts to end the ban on openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people serving either legislatively or through the courts initially proved unsuccessful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jimmie V. Reyna</span> American judge (born 1952)

Jimmie V. Reyna is an American lawyer, former president of the Hispanic National Bar Association, and a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States</span> United States Department of Veteran Affairs disability support for post-traumatic stress disorder

The United States has compensated military veterans for service-related injuries since the Revolutionary War, with the current indemnity model established near the end of World War I. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began to provide disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the 1980s after the diagnosis became part of official psychiatric nosology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Board of Veterans' Appeals</span> Administrative tribunal within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) is an administrative tribunal within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), located in Washington, D.C. Established by Executive Order on July 28, 1933, it determines whether U.S. military veterans are entitled to claimed veterans' benefits and services. The Board's mission is to conduct hearings and decide appeals properly before the Board in a timely manner. The Board's jurisdiction extends to all questions in matters involving a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects a provision of benefits by the Secretary to Veterans, their dependents, or their Survivors. Final decision on such appeals are made by the Board based on the entire record in the proceedings and upon consideration of all evidence and applicable provisions of law and regulation. The Board's review is de novo.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">H.R. 1405 (113th Congress)</span>

H.R. 1405 is a bill "to amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include a notice of disagreement form in any notice of decision issued for the denial of a benefit sought, to improve the supervision of fiduciaries of veterans under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes." It was introduced into the United States House of Representatives during the 113th United States Congress.

Kimberly Graves is a senior executive director for the St. Paul, Minnesota office of the Veterans Benefits Administration or VBA, a subsidiary organization of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). She is most known for a controversy beginning in 2014 in which she, along with another executive director within the VA, was accused of abusing her authority to take advantage of the VA's PCS procedures and of embezzling public funds.

Diana Rubens is a senior executive director for the Philadelphia office of the Veterans Benefits Administration or VBA, a subsidiary organization of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). She is notable for a 2014 controversy in which she, along with a colleague, was accused of abusing authority and embezzling public funds, taking advantage of the VA's PCS procedures.

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) is a Supreme Court of the United States case that affirmed unanimously the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.

<i>Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake</i> Significant Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim opinion

Nieves-Rodriguez vs. Peake is a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims case that dealt with the adequacy and weighing of medical opinions.

Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a US Supreme Court case related to the interpretation by an executive agency of its own ambiguous regulations. The case involved a veteran who had been denied some benefits from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs due to the agency's interpretation of its regulations. The case challenges the "Auer deference" established in the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins, in which the judiciary branch of the government normally defers to an agency's own interpretation of its own regulations in resolving matters of law. Lower courts, including the Federal Appeals Circuit Courts, ruled against the veteran, acknowledging the Auer deference.

References

  1. ↑ Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, Annual Benefits Report - Fiscal Year 2018 at 7–9, https://www.benefits.va.gov/REPORTS/annual_benefits_report.asp
  2. ↑ "The Board of Veterans' Appeals Decision search results". www.va.gov. Retrieved 2019-12-29.
  3. ↑ "USCAVC: Search". U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. December 29, 2019. Retrieved December 29, 2019.
  4. ↑ "Google Scholar search results". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2019-12-29.
  5. ↑ Web Automated Reference Material System, 81 Fed. Reg. 15150 (Mar. 21, 2016), ("Historically, the Veterans Benefits Administration's Adjudication Procedures Manual, M21-1 ... was electronically available to the public only in WARMS. WARMS displays M21-1 content in individual Microsoft Word documents, currently in excess of 300 documents, making it difficult to search for information or navigate from one citation to another. ... The M21-1 content found on KnowVA is a mirror image of the M21-1 content available to VA employees through internal servers and is updated simultaneously when VA updates M21-1 content on the internal servers. Moreover, KnowVA is more user friendly than WARMS, with an intuitive search engine, keyword search capability, hyperlinked cross references to other M21-1 content, and historical versions of M21-1 content, making it easier for users to locate information.")
  6. ↑ "M21-1 Adjudication Procedures". www.benefits.va.gov (Web Automated Reference Material System). Retrieved June 22, 2018.
  7. ↑ "Welcome to the KnowVA Knowledge Base (also known as 'VA Self-Service')". www.eBenefits.va.gov. Retrieved June 22, 2018.
  8. ↑ VA Adjudications Manual, M21–1; Rescission of Manual M21–1 Provisions Related To Exposure to Herbicides Based on Receipt of the Vietnam Service Medal, 72 Fed. Reg. 66,218, 66,219 (Nov. 27, 2007)
  9. ↑ See also Disabled American Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 859 F. 3d 1072, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and Operation of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, Criteria governing disposition of appeals, 38 C.F.R. § 19.5 (2018), ("The Board is not bound by Department manuals, circulars, or similar administrative issues.").
  10. ↑ Gray v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Nos. 2016-1782 & 2016-1793, slip op. (Dyk, J., dissenting) at 2, Fed. Cir. (Mar. 21, 2018), referencing respondent's response opposing rehearing ("As the government concedes, the M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual 'consolidated all of the [Department of Veterans Affairs] policies and procedures for adjudicating claims for VA benefits into one resource'.")
  11. ↑ Disabled American Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 859 F. 3d 1072, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2017), ("The VA consolidates its policy and procedures into one resource known as the M21-1 Manual. The M21-1 Manual provides guidance to Veterans Benefits Administration ('VBA') employees and stakeholders 'to allow [the] VBA to process claims benefits quicker and with higher accuracy.'")
  12. ↑ "Home". NOVA. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
  13. ↑ Brief of Petitioner at 9, National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Petition for hearing en banc (No. 20-1321), filed January 27, 2020.
  14. ↑ Disabled American Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (DAV), 859 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
  15. ↑ National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No. 2020-1321, slip op. at 19 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2020) ("because we find that the Knee Joint Stability Rule falls within the 'general applicability' language of section 552(a)(1)(D), we overrule our contrary holding in DAV.")
  16. ↑ Corrected Brief of Amici Curiae National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., in Support of Petitioner at 8–9, National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (July 14, 2020) (No. 20-1321).
  17. ↑ National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No. 2020-1321, slip op. at 19 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2020)
  18. ↑ Off. Inspector Gen., Dep't Veterans Aff., Rep. No. 19-07119-80, Telehealth Public-Use Questionnaires Were Used Improperly to Determine Disability Benefits 2 (Feb. 18, 2020) https://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-19-07119-80.pdf
  19. ↑ Veterans Benefits Admin., Dep't Veterans Aff., Examination Report Requirements: Telehealth and Telemental Health Examinations, M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual, pt. III, subpt. iv, chap. 3, sec. D, no. 2, subsec. c (rev. Feb. 19, 2020).
  20. ↑ Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Admin., Dep’t Veterans Affs., Memorandum of Changes (May 10, 2021); see also M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual, FY21 Reorganization Guide (rev. April 30, 2021).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.