In this case, there was an agreement in place for compensation, but a party was not properly compensated. The suit ended with that party receiving compensation similar to what was supposed to be received, accounting for the growth on value as well.

It's a bit more of a straightforward case as conditions for receiving said compensation were outlined in contract, with specific numbers and the value at the time and present day values are known.

The case of the army vet is not a fair compensation, but it's hard to compare to a case when a contract between 2 parties was established and agreed upon and included specific details outlining compensation.