## Facts

- James E. Sursely, a Vietnam veteran, had service-connected amputations of his left arm and both legs and received VA disability compensation with special monthly compensation.
- In March 2003, he applied for two annual clothing allowances under 38 U.S.C. § 1162: one based on a prosthetic arm that damaged shirts and one based on a wheelchair used due to bilateral leg loss that damaged pants.
- The VA sought an advisory opinion from the Director, Compensation and Pension Service, who concluded § 1162 authorized only a single annual clothing allowance, relying on the statute’s reference to “a clothing allowance” and an implementing regulation using similar singular phrasing.
- The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied the request for more than one clothing allowance.
- The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed, interpreting § 1162 to permit only one annual payment per veteran.
- Sursely appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether 38 U.S.C. § 1162 authorizes more than one annual clothing allowance when a veteran uses multiple qualifying prosthetic/orthopedic appliances (or medications) that independently tend to wear out or tear clothing.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the Veterans Court.
- The court held that § 1162 does not preclude multiple annual clothing allowances when a veteran has multiple qualifying appliances or medications that each satisfy the statutory standard.
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory use of the singular (e.g., “a clothing allowance”) does not, by itself, bar multiple awards when the statutory text and structure do not expressly impose a one-award-per-veteran limit.
- Section 1162 focuses on whether a veteran uses a qualifying appliance or medication that tends to damage clothing; it does not expressly restrict compensation to a single allowance regardless of the number of qualifying sources of clothing damage.
- Veterans’ benefits provisions with a compensatory purpose should be construed to effectuate that purpose, including avoiding undercompensation where multiple service-connected appliances cause distinct clothing damage.
- An agency’s restrictive interpretation reflected in advisory guidance or a regulation tracking statutory singular phrasing cannot override the best reading of the statute.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit ruled that § 1162 permits awarding more than one annual clothing allowance when multiple qualifying prosthetic/orthopedic appliances or medications independently tend to wear out or tear a veteran’s clothing, and it reversed and remanded the denial of Sursely’s request for two allowances.


Sursely v. Peake, 551 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)