Freeman v. Shinseki
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
24 Vet. App. 404 (2011)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
William Freeman (plaintiff) was a veteran who was awarded service-connected-disability benefits for paranoid schizophrenia rated at 100 percent. In making that award, the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) also determined that Freeman was not competent to handle the disbursement of funds from his benefits. The VA appointed a paid federal fiduciary to manage the disbursement of funds, rather than appointing Freeman’s sister, who was involved in his claim and his care, as the fiduciary. Freeman filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) with the VA regarding the fiduciary appointment, seeking to have his sister appointed instead. The VA informed Freeman that he could not dispute the agency’s selection of his fiduciary. Freeman then filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, seeking a writ of mandamus to force the VA to accept his NOD, in order to make the appointment of the paid fiduciary judicially reviewable by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Concurrence (Lance, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
