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

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. [1] Beginning in 2015 the agency transferred the Manual from the WARMS (Web Automated Reference Material System) platform [2] [lower-alpha 1] to their KnowVA Knowledge Base. [3]

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 2]

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.” [4] [5] 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. [6] [7]

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) [8] 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. [9] The Federal Circuit concluded in 2017 that M2-1 Manual provisions do not fall under the purview of the Court. [10] 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. [11]

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. [12]

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." [13]

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 telehealth examinations for mental disorders. [14] [15]

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. [16] The agency indicated they intend to “[make] the M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual (M21-1) a more consumable and navigable resource.”

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ 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/."
  2. ↑ 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 when all the judges of a court sit to hear a case, not just one judge or a smaller panel of judges. For courts like the United States Courts of Appeals in which each case is heard by a three-judge panel instead of the entire court, en banc review is usually used only for unusually complex or important cases or when the court believes there is an especially significant issue at stake. En banc is a French phrase meaning "in bench".

United States federal administrative law encompasses statutes, rules, judicial precedents, and executive orders, that together form administrative laws that define the extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States government, including executive departments and independent agencies. Because Congress, the president, and the federal courts have limited resources to address all issues, specialized powers are often delegated to a board, commission, office, or other agency. These administrative agencies 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.

In the United States, extradition law is a collection of federal laws that regulate extradition, the formal process by which a fugitive found in the United States is surrendered to another country or state for trial, punishment, or rehabilitation.

<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">Executive Office for Immigration Review</span> Office of the US Department of Justice

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is a sub-agency of the United States Department of Justice whose chief function is to conduct removal proceedings in immigration courts and adjudicate appeals arising from the proceedings. These administrative proceedings determine the removability and admissibility of individuals in the United States. As of January 19, 2023, there were sixty-eight immigration courts and three adjudication centers throughout the United States.

<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.

A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries.

<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> VA disability compensation for PTSD

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> US government administrative tribunal

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, the Board reviews and makes decisions on appeals concerning veterans' benefits. Its mission is to conduct hearings and issue decisions promptly, ensuring all relevant evidence and applicable laws and regulations are considered to provide fair outcomes for veterans, their dependents, and survivors. The Board operates on behalf of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs

<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.

<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.

Wolf v. Vidal, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, also known by the acronym AMA, is a law that reformed how the United States Department of Veterans Affairs handled and adjudicated appeals of claims for veterans' benefits. It was signed into law by President Donald Trump on August 23, 2017, and was one of several VA reforms moved through the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs that year. The law removed three time-consuming steps in the appeals process: the issuance of a Statement of the Case (SOC), the filing of a VA-9, and the Certification of Appeal. It also removed VA regional offices from the appeals process. Appeals now go directly to the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

References

  1. ↑ Web Automated Reference Material System, 81 Fed. Reg. 15150 (Mar. 21, 2016) (describing usability improvements).
  2. ↑ "M21-1 Adjudication Procedures". www.benefits.va.gov (Web Automated Reference Material System). Retrieved June 22, 2018.
  3. ↑ "Welcome to the KnowVA Knowledge Base (also known as 'VA Self-Service')". www.eBenefits.va.gov. Retrieved June 22, 2018.
  4. ↑ 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)
  5. ↑ 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.").
  6. ↑ 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'.")
  7. ↑ 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.'")
  8. ↑ "National Association of Veterans' Advocates". NOVA. Retrieved August 8, 2020.
  9. ↑ 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.
  10. ↑ Disabled American Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (DAV), 859 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
  11. ↑ 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.")
  12. ↑ 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).
  13. ↑ National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No. 2020-1321, slip op. at 19 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2020)
  14. ↑ Office of Inspector General, Dep't of Veterans Affairs, Rep. No. 19-07119-80, Telehealth Public-Use Questionnaires Were Used Improperly to Determine Disability Benefits at 2 (Feb. 18, 2020), https://perma.cc/9Q75-TAMX
  15. ↑ Veterans Benefits Admin., Dep't of Veterans Affairs, M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual, Tele-C&P and Telemental Health Examination, M21-1, pt. III, subpt. iv, chap. 3, sec. A, topic 1, block c (rev. Aug. 21, 2024).
  16. ↑ Compensation Service, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, Memorandum of Changes (May 10, 2021); see also M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual, FY21 Reorganization Guide (rev. Apr. 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.