The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Monday in *Young v. Collins*, a case involving a veteran's multi-decade quest for service-connected disability benefits that highlights the complex procedural requirements governing veterans' appeals.
James Young served in the military during the mid-1980s and in 1988 applied to what became the Department of Veterans Affairs for service-connected disability benefits under 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 and 1131. Young based his claim on head injuries he allegedly suffered in a car accident during his military service.
The VA's Board of Veterans' Appeals denied Young's initial claim in 1999, leaving the veteran without the benefits he sought. The case remained dormant for more than two decades until Young moved the Board to vacate its 1999 decision pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000(a), alleging he had been denied due process in the original proceedings.
The Board denied Young's motion to vacate, prompting him to appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. However, the Veterans Court dismissed Young's appeal on procedural grounds, finding that the appeal was untimely insofar as it sought review of the 1999 Board decision.
The Veterans Court's dismissal led Young to pursue his case before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments in the matter. Kenneth Dojaquez of Carpenter Chartered in Topeka, Kansas, represented Young as the claimant-appellant, with assistance from Kenneth M. Carpenter.
The Department of Veterans Affairs was represented by Meredyth Cohen Havasy from the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Civil Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, along with a team that included Martin F. Hockey Jr., Patricia M. McCarthy, and Yaakov Roth. The VA's Office of General Counsel was represented by Matthew Albanese and Brian D. Griffin.
The case was decided by a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Taranto, Bryson, and Cunningham, with Judge Taranto writing the court's opinion. The Federal Circuit's decision, issued on January 13, 2026, represents the latest chapter in Young's long-running legal battle that began with his original 1988 application for benefits.
The *Young* case illustrates the procedural complexities that can arise in veterans' benefits litigation, particularly when claims involve challenges to decades-old Board decisions. Veterans seeking to challenge Board decisions face strict deadlines and procedural requirements that can bar review of their claims if not properly followed.
Under federal law, veterans who disagree with Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions generally have 120 days to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Veterans Court serves as an intermediate appellate court specifically created to review VA benefit decisions, and its rulings can be further appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The procedural nature of Young's case reflects broader challenges within the veterans' benefits system, where complex regulations and strict deadlines can sometimes prevent veterans from obtaining review of their claims on the merits. The case also demonstrates how veterans' benefits disputes can span multiple decades, creating additional procedural hurdles for claimants.
Veterans seeking service-connected disability benefits must typically establish that their disabilities are related to injuries or illnesses incurred during military service. The process involves medical examinations, review of military and medical records, and often lengthy administrative proceedings that can take years to resolve.
The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, making it the final arbiter of many veterans' benefits disputes unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case. This specialized jurisdiction ensures that veterans' benefits law develops consistently across the country.
For veterans and their advocates, the *Young* decision serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding and complying with procedural requirements in veterans' benefits cases. The case also underscores the challenges faced by veterans who may not have legal representation during the initial stages of their claims.
The decision comes as the VA continues to process a substantial backlog of disability claims from veterans of recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as ongoing claims from veterans of earlier conflicts. The procedural requirements highlighted in *Young* remain applicable to all veterans seeking to challenge adverse VA decisions.
Legal practitioners in veterans' benefits law closely watch Federal Circuit decisions like *Young* for guidance on procedural requirements and substantive legal standards that affect their clients' cases. The ruling provides clarity on the deadlines and procedures that govern challenges to Board decisions, particularly those involving allegations of due process violations.