Legal Meets Practical: Accessible Solutions

Class Action Option Empowers Vets Against VA

A recent federal court ruling opens up the possibility for veterans to bring class action lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs. This means that, when certain conditions are met, veterans need not go it alone when contesting the denial (or handling) of their disability benefits claims.

“This is a watershed decision, and its importance should not be diminished merely because the court declined to certify this proposed class,” Chief Judge Robert Davis wrote in the opinion. “On the contrary, the court’s decision will shape our jurisprudence for years to come and, I hope, bring about positive change for our nation’s veterans.”

In Monk, Jr., Et. Al., v. Robert L. Wilkie, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) reviewed a motion for class certification made on behalf of veterans with medical and financial hardship. (No. 15-1280). The petition alleged that the VA’s delay in adjudicating disability compensation benefits constituted a violation of the right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, and sought an order from the CAVC directing the VA to decide appeals within one year after a Notice of Disagreement is filed.

In order to certify the class under the applicable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule 23), the court needed to find that four requirements were met:

  • Commonality – That there were questions of law or fact common to the class.
  • Adequacy – That the representative parties would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
  • Numerosity – That the class was so numerous that joinder of all members was impracticable.
  • Typicality – That the claims or defenses of the representative parties were typical of the claims or defenses of the class.

(Note that these four requirements spell out “CAN’T.” If each isn’t met, you can’t certify).

In this case, the CAVC rejected the petitioners’ argument that commonality was satisfied because all the class members have suffered the same injury – delay – due to the VA’s broken appeals system. The CAVC examined whether the delay in all the appeals was “unreasonable,” finding that certain factors stood in the way of finding such unreasonableness across the board (for example, some veterans experienced delays due to the VA’s duty to provide hearings, which slows the process). There was not a specific practice or policy resulting in delay set forth by the petitioners, which prevented them from meeting the commonality requirement. Accordingly, the CAVC denied the motion for certification (and did not proceed to address the other three requirements).

This case, while disappointing for the petitioners, is extremely important for veteran claimants going forward. It not only raises the possibility of class certification, but it provides a framework for those who may be contemplating pursuing similar relief. As we know, thousands of veterans are suffering the same issues across the board, and this case raises the possibility of them seeking relief as a united front.

And there’s power in numbers.

*Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for Sarah Schauerte’s legal blog on veteran issues at:

Comments are closed.

Mission Statement

My mission is to provide accessible, high-quality legal services to small business owners and to veterans. I will strive to clearly communicate, understand objectives, and formulate and execute effective legal solutions.


No Attorney-Client Relationship

This website is maintained exclusively for informational purposes. It is not intended to provide legal or other professional advice and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the lawyer or her clients. Viewing this site, using information from it, or communicating with Sarah Schauerte through this site by email does not create an attorney-client relationship.


Online readers should not act nor decline to act, based on content from this site, without first consulting an attorney or other appropriate professional. Because the law changes frequently, this website's content may not indicate the current state of the law. Nothing on this site is meant to predict or guarantee future results. I am not liable for the use or interpretation of information contained on this website, and expressly disclaim all liability for any actions you take or fail to take, based on this website's content.


I do not necessarily endorse and am not responsible for content accessed through this website's links to other Internet resources. Correctness and adequacy of information on those sites is not guaranteed, and unless otherwise stated, I am not associated with such linked sites.

Contacting Me

You may email me through the email address provided by this site, but information you send through email or this website is not secure and may not be confidential. Communications will not be treated as privileged unless I already represent you. Do not send confidential information until you have established a formal attorney-client relationship with me. Even if I represent you, please understand that email security is still uncertain and that you accept all risks of such uncertainty and potential lack of confidentiality when you send us unencrypted, sensitive, or confidential email. Email from me never constitutes an electronic signature, unless it expressly says so.