WASHINGTON − Norman Thornton, a Gulf War veteran, believes he deserves higher disability compensation for his PTSD.

Joshua Bufkin received a denial for PTSD benefits after his time in the Air Force because of disagreements among doctors regarding his eligibility.

Both individuals appealed their cases to a specialized veterans court, which ruled against them.

The Supreme Court is set to examine how the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims addresses denied benefits and how to ensure that decisions favor veterans in ambiguous situations.

The case being discussed on Wednesday could have “significant consequences for countless veterans,” as argued by the attorneys representing Thornton and Bufkin regarding the disability rulings made by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

“The VA frequently makes mistakes in benefits decisions, and the disparity between receiving benefits and being denied can change lives for disabled veterans,” the attorneys stated.

The plaintiffs have support from multiple veterans’ organizations that assert veterans should receive the benefit of the doubt regarding service-related disability claims, a principle established over a century ago. Congress has intervened twice to uphold this standard.

In 1988, Congress established the Veterans Court to review contested decisions and mandated that the scales should favor veterans in ambiguous cases.

However, veterans’ groups have voiced concerns that the court has been overly lenient toward the VA when assessing its decisions.

In 2002, Congress instructed the Veterans Court to give proper consideration to how the VA applies the benefit-of-the-doubt principle.

The challenge arises when there is a disagreement over whether a denied claim was nearly eligible for approval, where the law requires a decision in favor of the veteran.

The government contends that the Veterans Court is limited to looking for clear errors without revisiting all the evidence. Veterans assert that Congress intended for a more comprehensive review, especially as evidence can often be ambiguous.

For Bufkin, the Veterans Court did not discern any obvious faults in the VA’s finding that one doctor’s evaluation of his service-related PTSD was more thorough and convincing than another’s.

His attorneys contend that the court overlooked whether the VA correctly applied the benefit-of-the-doubt principle based on the complete evidence. Bufkin notes he was affected by being caught between his wife’s threats of self-harm if he did not leave the military and the military’s alleged suggestion that he could either depart or get a divorce.

The federal government argued that Bufkin’s situation was not a close call, as the majority of evidence was not in his favor.

In a similar manner, the VA determined that the total evidence indicated that Thornton did not qualify for a higher disability rating.

Thornton has experienced challenges with work and social interactions, among other issues, which the VA has rated at 50% disability. However, he believes he merits a greater disability rating based on one evaluator’s insights regarding how “dissociative episodes” have impacted his job performance.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the government’s position that the Veterans Court adequately reviewed both cases.

A ruling in Bufkin v. McDonough is anticipated by summer.