Unequal Treatment of Disabled Veterans

Disabled veterans often receive more generous support than civilians with similar conditions, but race, gender and discharge status shape who qualifies for help. 
 

---

 

The United States often treats disability as a matter of medical need. But who receives support — and who is considered deserving of it — can depend on a person’s story, status and identity. In “Veteran Disability Hierarchies,” Seton Hall Law Professor Doron Dorfman and Jennifer Oliva, a law professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, argue that the comparatively generous treatment of disabled veterans reveals a broader politics of deservingness: Disability benefits and resources are available, but access to them is uneven.

Forthcoming in UCLA Law Review Discourse, the article examines how the public image of the disabled veteran as a “warrior-hero” can influence decisions about who merits support. The authors identify a central tension in disability policy: People may receive assistance not simply because of their needs but because others believe they have earned it.

The article builds on Dorfman’s research on the “Fear of the Disability Con,” which examines the suspicion that people exaggerate or fake disabilities to gain unearned advantages. That skepticism can make it harder for people with disabilities to secure accommodations and benefits, even when their needs are legitimate.

“Veterans have historically been viewed more favorably than other people with disabilities, benefiting from a long tradition of government support and benefits for military service. Our work reveals that even among disabled veterans, there are important politics and hierarchies that shape who receives recognition and support,” Dorfman said.

The authors trace that tradition from a 1636 law in Plymouth Colony that provided support to injured soldiers and their families through the expansion of veterans’ benefits after the Civil War. They compare the Department of Veterans Affairs’ disability compensation system with Social Security Disability Insurance, which serves people whose disabilities prevent them from working. Differences in eligibility rules and benefit structures can produce significantly different outcomes for people with similar disabilities.

Yet veterans do not receive equal treatment. Government data cited by the authors show that from fiscal 2010 through fiscal 2020, the initial approval rate for disability claims was 61% for Black veterans, compared with 75% for white veterans. The authors also examine how discharge status, gender and other aspects of identity can affect whether a veteran is viewed as deserving of assistance.

The article explores how these judgments can extend beyond benefits into the criminal legal system. In Porter v. McCollum, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a lawyer’s failure to present evidence of a defendant’s military service and related personal history during the penalty phase of a murder case amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The case illustrates how a veteran’s service and experiences can inform how a court understands a person’s actions and determines punishment.

The authors also discuss Fathia-Anna Davis, a Black Army nurse convicted in a murder-for-hire plot in which no one was harmed. She received the maximum sentence of 10 years, with her military service held against her rather than treated as a mitigating factor. Her experience underscores the limits of the assumption that military service automatically earns public sympathy or leniency.

The article connects these disparities to more recent policy decisions, including the 2025 ban on transgender military service and the Department of Veterans Affairs’ September 2025 reversal of a decision involving male breast cancer as a presumptive service-connected condition. The authors argue that such decisions reflect how ideas about gender, identity and deservingness can influence access to recognition and support.

“Reform requires more than expanding access to existing programs. It means designing systems that recognize the full range of disability experiences and ensure that support is based on individual needs, not assumptions about who deserves it,” Dorfman said.

Dorfman and Oliva propose extending problem-solving courts and disability-based sentencing mitigation beyond veterans, revising VA disability-rating practices that disadvantage people with mental health conditions and reducing the judgments that determine who is seen as worthy of help. Their analysis challenges the assumption that support should depend on a person’s perceived merit rather than individual needs.

“Compassion, resources and accommodation are available,” the authors write. “They are simply rationed.”