In May, a 鶹Ƶ law student, working with the 鶹Ƶ Veterans and Servicemembers Legal Clinic (M-VETS), advocated for a U.S. combat veteran before an administrative law judge at a hearing before the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA).
Founded in 2004, the M-VETS clinic enables Antonin Scalia Law School students to assist veterans, servicemembers, and their dependents with military/veteran/DVA administrative matters, including disability compensation and educational benefits appeals, discharge upgrades, and Boards for Correction of Military Records matters.
This case centered on a veteran’s 2016 claim for an increased rating for a service-connected disability resulting from an improvised explosive device attack in Afghanistan, which led to the veteran’s medical separation from the Army.
Originally, Army veteran Richard Fahlman received a 20% rating for his injury, but based on new medical evidence, M-VETS filed a request in 2019 to increase this rating to 40%. The DVA initially denied the request. Had the 40% rating been approved, Fahlman would have been medically retired and received all the benefits accompanying that status, including much-needed health care. In response to the DVA’s rejection, M-VETS filed a motion alleging a Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE).
“I’m glad our client reached out to M-VETS, and we could advocate on his behalf at this hearing,” said . “Our position was that the decision review officer had made a CUE error, contradicting federal law and regulatory standards.”
Many Scalia Law students, called student advisors at M-VETS, worked diligently on behalf of the client during case preparations. Student advisor Samantha Hargis was chosen to conduct the hearing under MacArthur’s supervision.
“Working on this matter for our client was an incredible opportunity,” said Hargis, who graduated from George 鶹Ƶ with a JD in May. “I am deeply grateful to the student advisors who came before me and laid a solid foundation for our argument at the hearing, our client for his commitment and collaboration throughout the process, and my supervising attorney for his invaluable guidance and support.”
“Ms. Hargis did a phenomenal job arguing the motion and presenting evidence during the hearing,” MacArthur said. “Sam conducted a pre-hearing conference with the judge, delivered an opening statement, conducted a direct examination of our client, and delivered an impactful closing, effectively arguing our position.”
MacArthur said the DVA benefits process allows M-VETS student advisors to gain practical experience in a nonadversarial setting, while providing valuable pro bono services to veterans.
“Mr. MacArthur and Ms. Hargis put their heart, time, and soul into developing my defense, and I couldn’t have asked for a better legal team. Without M-VETS, combat veterans like me wouldn’t have a voice,” Fahlman said.
M-VETS continues to work with the veteran while the hearing outcome is pending.