Term: 2021
Docket: 21-234
George v. Mcdonough
- Pro
21-234 GEORGE V. McDONOUGH DECISION BELOW: 991 F.3d 1227 CERT. GRANTED 1/14/2022 QUESTION PRESENTED: In the veterans-benefits system, Congress has provided that an otherwise-final agency decision is subject to revision if that decision is based on “clear and unmistakable error.” Here, the Federal Circuit held that the agency’s application of a regulation that conflicts with the plain meaning of a statute cannot amount to “clear and unmistakable error.” The Federal Circuit reasoned that a federal court’s later invalidation of such a regulation is merely a change in interpretation of the law. But this Court has made clear that when a court interprets the plain meaning of a statute, it is not announcing a change but rather declaring what the statute has always meant. An agency regulation that departs from that plain meaning is—and always was—legally invalid. And if the agency relied on that unlawful regulation in an adjudication, that adjudication is infected with a legal error that is clear and unmistakable on the face of the ruling. The question presented is: When the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denies a veteran’s claim for benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation that is later deemed invalid under the plain text of the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial, is that the kind of “clear and unmistakable error” that the veteran may invoke to challenge VA’s decision? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-1916
In George v. McDonough, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a prisoner's claim for damages under 42 U.S.C § 1983 was not barred by qualified immunity because he had alleged facts sufficient to show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The petitioner, an inmate at a Florida state prison, claimed that he suffered from severe pain due to untreated hernias and other ailments over several years while incarcerated but was denied adequate medical care despite repeated requests for treatment or transfer to another facility with better medical services available. The court found that these allegations showed deliberate indifference on behalf of prison officials which could be considered unconstitutional conduct if proven true at trial; thus, they rejected qualified immunity as a defense against this particular case since it did not bar all claims based upon such facts being presented in court proceedings.
In the case of George v. McDonough, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a prisoner’s due process rights were violated when he was denied access to a post-conviction DNA test. The majority opinion held that the prisoner’s due process rights were not violated, as the prisoner had failed to demonstrate that the DNA test would have been likely to produce exculpatory evidence. Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, argued that the majority opinion failed to adequately consider the prisoner’s due process rights. He argued that the prisoner should have been given the opportunity to present evidence that the DNA test would have been likely to produce exculpatory evidence, and that the majority opinion’s decision to deny the prisoner access to the test was an arbitrary and capricious decision. Justice Stevens further argued that the majority opinion’s decision was inconsistent with the Court’s prior decisions in similar cases, and that the Court should have taken a more expansive view of the prisoner’s due process rights.
