For the first time in seven years, the Court of Federal Claims has discussed the “half-a-loaf” doctrine as it applies to the six-year statute of limitations for bringing a lawsuit in the court. The case is Johnson v. United States, and it was decided on September 6, 2024
The “half-a-loaf” doctrine states that where a corrections board determination gives partial relief, but denies a claimant the full relief he seeks and to which he is entitled, a new cause of action may arise. The case was last explained by the Court of Appeals in DeBow v. United States in 1970. The Court of Federal Claims has cited the doctrine only nine times since the year 2000 in reported cases.
In Johnson’s case, the Board for Corrections of Navy Records said that the initial denial of military medical retirement benefits due to his injuries being incurred “not in the line of duty” was an error, and it referred the case to the Physical Evaluation Board for assignment of a rating. However, the PEB determined that Johnson was not unfit. The Court of Federal Claims analyzed his case under the “half-a-loaf” doctrine, but found it did not apply and that his case was still barred by the six-year statute of limitation period that ran from the date of the initial PEB decision. Still, the fact that this somewhat obscure exception was brought forward by the court after so many years is significant.
Since the “half-a-loaf” doctrine has not been revisited by the Federal Circuit for more than 50-years, it may be open to liberalizing this exception to the statute of limitations in medical military disability cases.
The “half-a-loaf” doctrine states that where a corrections board determination gives partial relief, but denies a claimant the full relief he seeks and to which he is entitled, a new cause of action may arise. The case was last explained by the Court of Appeals in DeBow v. United States in 1970. The Court of Federal Claims has cited the doctrine only nine times since the year 2000 in reported cases.
In Johnson’s case, the Board for Corrections of Navy Records said that the initial denial of military medical retirement benefits due to his injuries being incurred “not in the line of duty” was an error, and it referred the case to the Physical Evaluation Board for assignment of a rating. However, the PEB determined that Johnson was not unfit. The Court of Federal Claims analyzed his case under the “half-a-loaf” doctrine, but found it did not apply and that his case was still barred by the six-year statute of limitation period that ran from the date of the initial PEB decision. Still, the fact that this somewhat obscure exception was brought forward by the court after so many years is significant.
Since the “half-a-loaf” doctrine has not been revisited by the Federal Circuit for more than 50-years, it may be open to liberalizing this exception to the statute of limitations in medical military disability cases.