Posted on Sep 8, 2015
Did you know that a Law Professor Calls Out Court’s Abuse Of Authority?
7.36K
32
19
9
9
0
Another great article from Kim Bolen RN CCM ACM on
veterans getting shortchanged by this abuse of discretion, “Single judge panels are ‘Dollar Store’ discount justice for our veterans.”
What do you think RP Members?
Veterans deserve more than 'dollar store' justice on the cheap!
Walsh says veterans deserve a more than a fair shake when seeking benefits. And I agree with him. When it comes to court remedy following abuses by any Regional Office, veterans should get more than “discount justice” or at least something on par with other Federal courts.
https://www.disabledveterans.org/2015/09/08/law-professor-calls-out-courts-abuse-of-authority/?inf_contact_key=250327d559b373249f6b59288f57db04192cd07765e1e8bc68e48bfab8f26e25
A new paper by law professor James Ridgway gave a scalding critique of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) for its abuse of authority to render excessive numbers of single-judge opinions. Ridgway criticized the CAVC for this abuse because it hinders the development of veterans law and has the effect of withholding justice from veterans.
The paper title (co-authored with Rory Riley and Barton Stichman) title tees up the issue nicely, called “‘Not Reasonably Debatable’: The Problems with Single-Judge Decisions By the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims”.
Here is the abstract:
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) has statutory authority — unique among the federal appellate courts — to allow individual judges to decide appeals. As the CAVC completes the first quarter century of operations since its creation, this article examines the court’s use of this authority. Based upon two years of data developed and analyzed by the authors, this article concludes that outcome variance in single-judge decisions is a serious problem at the CAVC. Not only is there a substantial difference in the outcomes of appeals assigned to the different judges, but there are clear examples of decisions that violate the court’s precedent against deciding novel issues or debatable cases by a single judge. Based upon the more than 4,000 decisions reviewed, it is recommended that substantial changes must be made in how the court exercises single-judge authority. Alternatively, this authority could be abolished altogether so that the CAVC decides all appeals by panel, as is done by the other federal appellate courts. The near-term goal of reform should be to increase the percentage of the CAVC’s opinions that are published from the current average of under two percent to at least twelve percent (the average for federal courts of appeals). Increasing the number of precedential decisions will not only ensure fairness to all of the veterans appealing to the court, but will also improve the guidance provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs because it would resolve more legal issues and also demonstrate how the court believes the law should be applied to difficult or new fact patterns.”
veterans getting shortchanged by this abuse of discretion, “Single judge panels are ‘Dollar Store’ discount justice for our veterans.”
What do you think RP Members?
Veterans deserve more than 'dollar store' justice on the cheap!
Walsh says veterans deserve a more than a fair shake when seeking benefits. And I agree with him. When it comes to court remedy following abuses by any Regional Office, veterans should get more than “discount justice” or at least something on par with other Federal courts.
https://www.disabledveterans.org/2015/09/08/law-professor-calls-out-courts-abuse-of-authority/?inf_contact_key=250327d559b373249f6b59288f57db04192cd07765e1e8bc68e48bfab8f26e25
A new paper by law professor James Ridgway gave a scalding critique of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) for its abuse of authority to render excessive numbers of single-judge opinions. Ridgway criticized the CAVC for this abuse because it hinders the development of veterans law and has the effect of withholding justice from veterans.
The paper title (co-authored with Rory Riley and Barton Stichman) title tees up the issue nicely, called “‘Not Reasonably Debatable’: The Problems with Single-Judge Decisions By the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims”.
Here is the abstract:
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) has statutory authority — unique among the federal appellate courts — to allow individual judges to decide appeals. As the CAVC completes the first quarter century of operations since its creation, this article examines the court’s use of this authority. Based upon two years of data developed and analyzed by the authors, this article concludes that outcome variance in single-judge decisions is a serious problem at the CAVC. Not only is there a substantial difference in the outcomes of appeals assigned to the different judges, but there are clear examples of decisions that violate the court’s precedent against deciding novel issues or debatable cases by a single judge. Based upon the more than 4,000 decisions reviewed, it is recommended that substantial changes must be made in how the court exercises single-judge authority. Alternatively, this authority could be abolished altogether so that the CAVC decides all appeals by panel, as is done by the other federal appellate courts. The near-term goal of reform should be to increase the percentage of the CAVC’s opinions that are published from the current average of under two percent to at least twelve percent (the average for federal courts of appeals). Increasing the number of precedential decisions will not only ensure fairness to all of the veterans appealing to the court, but will also improve the guidance provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs because it would resolve more legal issues and also demonstrate how the court believes the law should be applied to difficult or new fact patterns.”
Posted in these groups: 
Law
Virginia Department of Veterans Services
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Law Virginia Department of Veterans Services Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
4
4
0
True story. When I was an E-2 living in the barracks, smoking was permitted in the quarterdeck area, but not in bething. I lit up a cigarette and walked to the quarterdeck and got placed on report (disciplinary charge in the Navy). As an example I was given a Summary Courts Martial and 30 days restriction. You can imagine my knowledge of the military justice system at that point in my Navy career. The LCDR explained he was my defense council and I freely admitted to the charge, explaining that I was not actually smoking in the berthing area. He then explained that in a Summary, he is also the prosecutor and immediately found me guilty. To this day, I feel as if the military justice system is flawed. On the bright side, it didn't hold me back.
(4)
(0)
Sgt Spencer Sikder
Are those gold or red on your sleeves? Looks like gold to me, which reflects it didn't affect your career. Thanks for your service Master Chief!
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
2LT R. Asatov - I was guilty and principles/honestly at that young age caused me to admit it. I had two issues after further reflection. One you noted. The other was inadequate explanation of the process. Bear in mind the topic that I was responding to and the comment my career was not limited by this event.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
2LT R. Asatov - Years ago. I was merely responding to the topic. I did enough as a youth when I first entered the Navy to deserve more punishment that I received. Fortunately, on submarines, MOST COs understood that and gave me lots of breaks after this initial confrontation with the UCMJ. No complaints.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Excellent article.
If I understand the gist correctly, the major difference between our Veteran system (per the article) and the "normal" Federal system is that the Veteran system uses a singular judge as final arbiter, whereas the Federal system uses a panel of judges. This forces the Federal system to actually "develop precedent over time" whereas singular judges will develop conflicting opinions the longer this goes on.
The advantage of the Veteran system is the theoretical speed at which you can process individual claims... however this will quickly be lost because you will actually develop conflicting precedent as opposed to better precedent over time, which would actually streamline the process in the long term.
LTC John Shaw, is that an accurate assessment?
If I understand the gist correctly, the major difference between our Veteran system (per the article) and the "normal" Federal system is that the Veteran system uses a singular judge as final arbiter, whereas the Federal system uses a panel of judges. This forces the Federal system to actually "develop precedent over time" whereas singular judges will develop conflicting opinions the longer this goes on.
The advantage of the Veteran system is the theoretical speed at which you can process individual claims... however this will quickly be lost because you will actually develop conflicting precedent as opposed to better precedent over time, which would actually streamline the process in the long term.
LTC John Shaw, is that an accurate assessment?
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
He is right. Even congress is getting sick of the judicial branch. They enforce law, they do not make it.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google