## Facts

- Fred P. Gardner, a Korean War veteran, underwent surgery at a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility for a herniated disc unrelated to military service.
- After surgery, Gardner experienced pain and weakness in his left calf, ankle, and foot, which he attributed to the procedure.
- Gardner sought disability compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for injury or aggravation of injury resulting from VA hospitalization or medical or surgical treatment, excluding injuries caused by the veteran’s willful misconduct.
- The VA and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied benefits by applying 38 C.F.R. § 3.358(c)(3), which conditioned compensation on showing that the disability was proximately caused by VA fault (e.g., negligence) or by an “accident” (an unforeseen event) during treatment.
- The Court of Veterans Appeals reversed, the Federal Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether 38 C.F.R. § 3.358(c)(3), requiring proof of VA negligence, fault, or accident, is consistent with 38 U.S.C. § 1151’s text allowing compensation for injury or aggravation of injury “as the result of” VA treatment.
2. Whether the VA is entitled to deference for a long-standing regulatory interpretation that adds a fault-or-accident element not stated in § 1151.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit.
- The Court held that 38 C.F.R. § 3.358(c)(3) is inconsistent with the plain language of 38 U.S.C. § 1151 because the statute contains no fault-or-accident requirement.
- The terms “injury” and “as the result of” impose a causation requirement but do not implicitly require negligence or an unforeseen accident.
- Arguments based on legislative reenactment, congressional silence, and the regulation’s longevity could not overcome the statute’s clear text.
- Agency deference was inappropriate because the regulation conflicted with unambiguous statutory language.

## Legal Principles

- When a benefits statute unambiguously sets eligibility terms, an agency may not add substantive conditions (such as negligence or accident) through regulation.
- Under 38 U.S.C. § 1151, compensation is available for injury or aggravation of injury causally resulting from VA hospitalization or medical or surgical treatment, unless the injury is due to the veteran’s willful misconduct.
- The statutory word “injury,” read in context including “aggravation of an injury,” does not carry an implied fault component.
- In veterans’ benefits statutes, interpretive doubt is generally resolved in the veteran’s favor, reinforcing rejection of restrictive readings not grounded in statutory text.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated the VA’s fault-or-accident regulation under § 1151, holding that veterans may recover for treatment-related injuries based on causation alone, without proving negligence, fault, or an unforeseen accident.


Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (1994)