Sidley works with individual veterans seeking benefits, as well as with veterans’ advocacy groups to pursue systemic challenges. In 2025, the firm worked on over ___ matters for individual veterans, plus multiple class action matters.
We have long been dedicated to representing veterans in pursuit of their hard-earned medical and disability benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense. Our lawyers represent veterans at the agencies and before federal courts on claims for VA service-connected disability compensation, Combat Related Special Compensation, discharge upgrades, and military medical retirement.
In December 2025, Sidley helped secure a significant victory in Powers v. McDonough when the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part an order requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to build over 2,500 housing units on land in West Los Angeles for homeless veterans with disabilities.
The 600 acres of land at issue was originally donated to the VA in the late 1800s to maintain a home for veterans with disabilities. At its peak in the 1930s, approximately 5,000 veterans resided on the land and received educational, healthcare, and vocational services. However, in the 1970s, the VA began selling off the land to private parties and failed to provide veterans with access to housing and healthcare.
A class of over 3,000 homeless veterans asserted claims for violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, breach of a charitable trust, and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, and the district court granted a full judgment in favor of the veterans.
The VA challenged nearly every part of the court’s order on appeal. Working together with Public Counsel, the Sidley team handled both briefing and argument. The Ninth Circuit held in favor of the veterans on almost every issue. While the Ninth Circuit overturned the charitable-trust ruling, it concluded that the VA violated both the Rehabilitation Act (on three separate grounds) and the Administrative Procedure Act. Due to the Ninth Circuit’s order, the VA must immediately begin construction of the over 2,500 housing units ordered by the district court.
In the opinion, Ninth Circuit Judge Ana de Alba wrote that this case “demonstrates just how far the VA has strayed from its mission,” and its decision is another step toward ensuring that the VA “fulfills President Lincoln’s promise to care for those who have served in our nation’s military and for their families, caregivers, and survivors.”
The Sidley team included lawyers from the firm’s Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. offices.
In June 2025, Sidley secured an important victory in the U.S. Supreme Court for Corporal Simon Soto, a former Marine, and a class of more than 9,000 veterans who were denied the full extent of their retroactive Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC). CRSC is a benefit available only to combat-wounded veterans who are military retirees. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that veterans with combat-related disabilities are entitled to receive CRSC benefits for all months in which they are eligible, no matter when they applied for such benefits.
In doing so, the Court overturned the Federal Circuit’s ruling that veterans’ claims for CRSC are subject to the statute of limitations in the Barring Act. The firm was co-counsel with the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) on the matter.
Unfortunately, the fight for retroactive CRSC continues. In Interim Guidance issued August 20, 2025 and subsequent January 30, 2026 Clarifying Guidance, the military issued new rules to limit retroactive awards for CRSC claims filed on or after August 20, 2025. In November 2025, Sidley and the NVLSP filed a class action complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, challenging the policy, on behalf of a class of current and future veterans who have been, or will be, wrongfully denied retroactive CRSC benefits due to the Guidance. This case, called Ploe v. United States, is pending.
A Sidley pro bono team in Chicago secured Combat-Related Special Compensation for a medically retired veteran of the U.S. Army. Our client suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, and tinnitus, as well as numerous orthopedic injuries as a result of his 19 years of military service. The client was deployed once to Iraq and twice to Afghanistan, where he served as a combat medic. He received the Combat Medical Badge for “performing medical duties while engaged in active ground combat operations under enemy hostile fire to liberate Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.” The Sidley team proved that his mental health diagnoses and tinnitus were the result of armed conflict, entitling him to more than US$2,400 per month in additional, tax-free compensation for life.
A Sidley team secured an upgrade to the discharge status of a U.S. Navy veteran who served as a medic in Afghanistan from 2013 to 2014. His work as a medic exposed him to numerous child casualties, and his unit was under constant rocket and mortar fire during his service. The veteran used marijuana to cope with PTSD stemming from these experiences, which resulted in an “Other Than Honorable” discharge. The Naval Discharge Review Board upgraded the discharge to “General,” agreeing with Sidley’s arguments that the discharge was inequitable in light of the veteran’s service record and the circumstances surrounding his separation. The decision allows the veteran to access VA disability compensation and healthcare benefits, from which he was previously barred. The matter was referred to Sidley by the NVLSP.
A Sidley team in Washington, D.C. secured a favorable outcome for a U.S. Army veteran who was exposed to burn pits during her military service in Iraq and Kuwait. After the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied service connection for the veteran’s breast cancer diagnosis, Sidley challenged that determination, arguing that breast cancer is a “presumptive condition” under the 2022 PACT Act, the landmark U.S. law expanding U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) healthcare and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits, Agent Orange, and other toxic substances from the Vietnam, Gulf War, and post-9/11 eras. Consistent with Sidley’s arguments on behalf of the veteran, the VA issued a decision awarding service connection for the cancer that entitles the veteran to substantial retroactive benefits as well as ongoing benefits.
Another Sidley team secured a settlement in Smoke et al. v. Driscoll, a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit was brought by two Army veterans who were medically retired following sustained exposure to burn pits, on behalf of a class of current and future Army veterans who were wrongfully denied a combat-related tax exemption on their medical retirement pay. One client was medically retired for asthma and the other was medically retired due to breast cancer — both conditions that are known to be (and under the PACT Act, presumed to be) caused by burn pit exposure.
Under federal law, veterans who are medically retired due to “combat-related” injuries — a category that includes conditions caused by “instrumentalities of war” — are entitled to tax-free retirement benefits. The Army Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), however, concluded that Sidley’s clients and numerous other medically retired veterans did not suffer from combat-related injuries, arguing that burn pits are not “instrumentalities of war” except when being used to burn things like spent ammunition, ordinance, or military vehicles.
In the settlement, the Army agreed to issue a new policy defining open-air burn pits located in combat zones as “instrumentalities of war” for purposes of Army disability determinations. The Army corrected the named plaintiffs’ records to reflect a combat-related designation that confers a tax-exemption on their medical retirement pay. The Army has also agreed as part of the settlement to review the records of all other veterans who were retired for disabilities presumed to be caused by burn pits under the PACT Act and determine whether their conditions merit combat-related determinations under its new policy.
In September 2025, a Sidley team in New York and Chicago secured a discharge upgrade for a client who, after serving seven years with the U.S. Air Force, received an “Other Than Honorable” discharge classification. The client has diagnosed mental health conditions and there was significant evidence that those conditions affected his decision-making at the end of his time in service. The client applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) pro se and lost. Based on his diagnoses and evidence of his otherwise stellar quality of service, Sidley submitted a reconsideration request to the AFDRB, arguing that mental health conditions contributed to the misconduct. Crediting Sidley’s arguments, the AFDRB upgraded the client’s discharge characterization to “Honorable.” The discharge upgrade made the client eligible for many veterans’ benefits — most notably, as of March 2026, the GI Bill to cover his higher education and housing costs. With these costs covered, the client now has more time to focus on assignments and community projects. The client was recently admitted into a Master’s program at Cal Poly Pomona, and volunteers in his spare time at a nonprofit that helps with self-harm prevention.
“Everything your firm has done for me has really given me the motivation to keep on moving forward with my educational endeavors. The biggest difference is having stable housing. Before the discharge upgrade, I was constantly struggling to find low-cost housing. With the upgrade, I get my housing allowance now, and I have my own place I can finally call home.”
A Sidley team in San Francisco represented a U.S. Marine Corps veteran in successfully upgrading his discharge from “General” to “Honorable.” The veteran joined the Marines in 2007 at age 17 and was deployed in combat twice — in Iraq and Afghanistan— as a machine gunner. During his final deployment, he was wounded by an improvised explosive device (IED) that severely injured his right leg. His wounds left him in severe pain, and he endured 18 surgeries over two years before his leg was eventually amputated below the knee. While recovering, he became reliant on prescription pain medication and began to experience PTSD and suicidal ideation. After several incidents of misconduct stemming from alcohol and drug use, he was discharged. The Sidley team submitted an application to the Naval Discharge Review Board, arguing that the former Marine’s physical pain, traumatic brain injury, and PTSD mitigated and excused his disciplinary infractions. As a result of the discharge upgrade, he will now be eligible for additional VA benefits, including the GI Bill.
Sidley is partnering with the Royal British Legion to support injured service personnel in making claims under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. Through this collaboration, Sidley lawyers are providing pro bono support to help veterans and serving members of the armed forces navigate the often-complex claims process and secure the compensation to which they are entitled. This initiative is led by pro bono counsel Louise McCarthy and Matthew Shankland, partner and chair of the Pro Bono Committee in London, and includes many volunteer lawyers providing support. In 2025, Sidley teams assisted 9 service personnel in connection with the Royal British Legion partnership.
