Opinion ID: 816428
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: remote consequences

Text: Section 1151 recognizes that a veteran should be compensated when “[t]he Government having undertaken to bestow a benefit, has, in fact, inflicted a loss.” Hearings on H.R. 7320 Before the H. Comm. on World War Veter- ans’ Legislation, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. 113 (1924). This does not mean, however, that the statute covers every injury sustained by a veteran in a VA medical facility. Gardner makes clear that the statute does not extend to the “remote consequences” of the hospital care or medical treatment provided by the VA. 513 U.S. at 119; see also Roberson, 607 F.3d at 815-16 (emphasizing that the VA has no responsibility “to insur[e] for every possible condition that a veteran has, even if unrelated to service or VA treatment”). If, for example, a veteran reported to a VA medical center for an examination, and hours later was injured while engaged in recreational activities at the facility, his injury might well be deemed only a “remote consequence” of his earlier examination. Here, however, Viegas’ injury was not a “remote consequence” of the treatment he received at the VA’s Palo Alto Medical Center, but instead occurred because the VA failed to properly install and maintain the equipment necessary for the provision of his medical care.