Associates Jordan Costa (New York-Capital Markets) and Damien Grierson (New York-Capital Markets) and partner Michael Schiavone (New York-Capital Markets) helped the family of a Vietnam War veteran in a successful appeal of a benefits matter before the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

The US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was created by Congress under Article I of the Constitution to review decisions of the Board of Veterans Appeals of the US Department of Veterans Affairs. In 1992, Congress recognized that over two-thirds of appellants before the Court were unrepresented by counsel, and created the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program, a federally funded program to train and provide assistance to pro bono counsel to appellants before the Court.

In 2006, the Consortium referred to Shearman & Sterling the appeal of Alice Haberly, the mother of deceased veteran Gary Haberly. While on active duty in the US Army, Mr. Haberly was diagnosed with schizophrenia and discharged from service due to the disability.

Between 1973 and his death in 2002, Mr. Haberly was denied compensation for his schizophrenia on the claim that, notwithstanding a clean examination at the time of his induction into the Army, the disability pre-existed his service and was not aggravated by such service. For a disability to be compensable by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, a veteran must become disabled, or experience an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, while in service.

Following his death, Mr. Haberly’s mother continued his appeal for accrued benefits from the VA. In 2005, although it did not explain its reasoning, the Board upheld previous denials of Mr. Haberly’s claim, and in 2006, Shearman & Sterling began assisting Ms. Haberly with her appeal of the Board’s decision before the Court. A mentoring attorney from Paralyzed Veterans of America assisted the Consortium and the Shearman & Sterling team with the appeal.

The Shearman & Sterling team successfully argued before the Court that the Board failed to provide Ms. Haberly with an adequate statement of reasons and bases in support of its 2005 decision. On August 1, 2008, the Court vacated the Board’s 2005 decision and remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration.