The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion January 14 in *McKinney v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs*, addressing a veteran's challenge to the Department of Veterans Affairs' denial of his petition to expand insurance coverage for service-related illnesses.
Hugh Campbell McKinney petitioned the VA to institute rulemaking that would expand coverage under the Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program to include illness or disease caused by explosive ordnance exposure during military service. The VA denied McKinney's petition in a final decision published March 15, 2023.
The case centers on the scope of TSGLI, a program designed to provide financial assistance to servicemembers who suffer traumatic injuries. According to the court documents, TSGLI serves as a bridge benefit, covering the gap between when an injury occurs and when other veterans benefits become available. The program is administered by the VA, which has regulatory authority to define covered injuries and conditions.
Current TSGLI regulations cover physical damage to servicemembers caused by external force or exposure to chemical, biological, or radiological weapons. However, the existing framework generally excludes coverage for illnesses or diseases, with only limited exceptions already established in the regulations.
McKinney's petition sought to address what he viewed as a coverage gap for veterans who develop illnesses or diseases as a result of explosive ordnance exposure during their military service. The petition was filed under 38 U.S.C. Section 502, which governs the VA's rulemaking authority and provides a mechanism for requesting regulatory changes.
The Federal Circuit reviewed McKinney's challenge to the VA's denial of his rulemaking petition. Seth A. Watkins of Watkins Law & Advocacy, PLLC, represented McKinney in oral arguments before the three-judge panel. The Department of Justice's Commercial Litigation Branch represented the VA, with Daniel Falknor arguing for the government alongside attorneys from the VA's Office of General Counsel.
The case was heard by Circuit Judges Kimberly A. Moore (Chief Judge), Jimmie V. Reyna, and Pauline Newman. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman authored the opinion for the court.
The dispute highlights ongoing challenges in veterans' benefits law regarding the scope of coverage for service-related conditions. TSGLI was established as part of broader veterans' insurance programs to address immediate financial needs following traumatic injuries sustained during military service. The program's current structure focuses primarily on acute physical trauma rather than longer-term health consequences of military exposures.
McKinney's petition reflects broader concerns among veterans and advocates about coverage gaps for service members who develop illnesses or diseases from various military exposures, including explosive ordnance. Such exposures can result in delayed-onset health conditions that may not manifest immediately but can significantly impact veterans' health and financial well-being.
The VA's denial of the rulemaking petition indicates the agency's position that current TSGLI coverage parameters adequately serve the program's intended purpose. The agency maintains regulatory discretion in defining covered conditions and has historically limited TSGLI to immediate traumatic injuries rather than expanding coverage to include longer-term health consequences.
The Federal Circuit's review focused on whether the VA's denial of McKinney's rulemaking petition was consistent with applicable statutes and regulations governing veterans' benefits. The court examined both the procedural aspects of the VA's decision-making process and the substantive legal questions surrounding TSGLI's coverage scope.
This case represents part of a broader legal landscape involving veterans' benefits and insurance coverage disputes. Veterans frequently challenge VA decisions regarding benefit eligibility, coverage scope, and regulatory interpretations through federal court proceedings.
The outcome of *McKinney* may influence how the VA approaches future rulemaking petitions related to TSGLI coverage expansions. The decision could also affect other veterans seeking similar coverage for service-related illnesses or diseases not currently included under existing TSGLI regulations.
The case underscores ongoing tensions between veterans seeking expanded benefit coverage and federal agencies managing program resources and statutory limitations. Veterans' advocates continue to push for broader recognition of service-related health conditions, while agencies must balance coverage expansions against program sustainability and statutory constraints.
For veterans and their families, the decision may impact understanding of available insurance coverage options and the processes for seeking regulatory changes through federal rulemaking procedures. The case also highlights the role of federal courts in reviewing agency decisions regarding veterans' benefits and insurance programs.