Cypert v. Peake
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
22 Vet. App. 307 (2008)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Jerry Cypert was an active-duty military veteran. In 1990, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (defendant) classified Jerry as totally and permanently disabled due to a service-connected disability. In January 2004, Jerry married Darlene Cypert (plaintiff). Shortly after the marriage, Darlene applied for educational benefits through the Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance Program (DEA). The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denied Darlene’s claim, holding that because Jerry was classified as totally and permanently disabled in 1990, the 10-year DEA benefits eligibility period in which Jerry’s current or future spouse could claim DEA benefits through Jerry’s entitlement ended in 2000, well before Darlene and Jerry’s 2004 marriage. Darlene appealed, arguing that her 10-year eligibility period to claim DEA benefits through Jerry started to run when she became Jerry’s spouse in 2004, not when Jerry was classified as totally and permanently disabled in 1990. The VA countered, arguing it had discretion to set the beginning date of Darlene’s eligibility period for DEA benefits and that it was not required to start Darlene’s 10-year DEA benefits eligibility period on the date of her marriage to Jerry.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kasold, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.