Mary Ann Mackin's immigrant father served in World War I, and her brother died in a battle in Germany during World War II.

She knew she wanted to be a nurse, and her father encouraged her to work for the Veterans Administration because the organization took such good care of its soldiers.

And so she did. She thought the VA would take good care of her, too.

But the government broke a promise to Ms. Mackin and hundreds of other VA nurses when they reneged on a deal to pay full-time pensions to part-time employees.

Yesterday, after what had turned into a 22-year battle, 158 nurses in Pennsylvania and across the country celebrated because they finally will be made whole.

A recent administrative decision means they will now receive the full pensions they were promised, and they also are hopeful they will receive retroactive payments.

"This case is ... about the proposition that promises made by the government should be kept by the government," said attorney Timothy P. O'Brien, as he proposed a champagne toast celebrating the win in his law office yesterday. "The persistence of each of you ... in taking on this case and pursuing it to a successful conclusion, has ensured that that fundamental proposition -- not only for yourselves but for all citizens -- has been upheld."

The legal battle began in 1986, when Congress passed a law that stopped the practice of giving full-time pensions for part-time work.

The change was designed to protect against doctors getting windfall pensions at the ends of their careers by working for just a few years at the VA, Mr. O'Brien said.

"Congress inadvertently, or sloppily, swept up nurses as well," Mr. O'Brien said.

Part-time nurses hired by the VA in the 1950s and later had been guaranteed full-time pensions because they agreed they would not work anywhere else so that they could be on call at any time of day or night.

"We were committed to the VA all those years," said Ms. Mackin, of Forest Hills.

She became a nurse at the VA's Highland Drive facility, working with psychiatric patients, in 1958. She retired in 1996.

Even before that, though, in 1989, Ms. Mackin started fighting the change in the law that took away her full-time pension.

It took 13 years and thousands of letters and phone calls to Congress from nurses, their friends and family before there was any movement.

In 2002, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., wrote legislation designed to remedy the situation for the nurses.

"We were ecstatic," said Ms. Mackin, who was receiving about 25 percent less in her pension because of the change in the law. "We couldn't believe we actually had won."

But within a week of the law's passage, they learned that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management didn't believe the law was retroactive to 1986.

"We were so let down because we worked so long to get that law passed," Ms. Mackin said.

For years, the nurses, led by Ms. Mackin, went from law firm to law firm to try to find someone to represent them. But no one wanted the case.

Finally, last year, they found Mr. O'Brien and John Stember, whose law firm specializes in retirement law.

In May 2007, the attorneys filed a separate claim for each of the 158 nurses, asking that their pensions be made retroactive.

But all of those were denied by the OPM in a form letter.

The nurses appealed that decision, and in May, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, which reviews federal personnel decisions, ruled in the nurses' favor. The change did not become final until last month.

The plaintiffs' attorneys held a meeting yesterday to provide an update for the nurses and they celebrated with champagne and potato chips. They declined to provide any specific dollar figures for what the nurses will receive in additional pension.

The administrative judge who wrote the opinion found that the legislative intent of the bill was clearly meant to be retroactive, even if that word wasn't included.

"It seems to me that the [nurses] in the case at bar are the very individuals this new law was designed to protect," wrote Michael T. Rudisill.

He noted that Mr. Rockefeller specifically said that the bill was designed to "rectify" the 1986 law.

Again, attorneys refused to provide specific figures for the retroactive payments.

"It could easily be thousands of dollars for any given person," Mr. O'Brien said.

"This was justice for all, not just for me," Ms. Mackin said. "It's not just about the money. We felt we were treated unjustly."

Mr. Stember believes there are many more retired nurses affected by this decision than just the 158 he and Mr. O'Brien represent.

"The longer they wait, the fewer there are," added Marjorie Hricko, 72, of Delmont.

She, too, was a nurse at the Highland Drive hospital who retired in 1996.

"I didn't think we'd ever win," she said. "The government has the ability to delay and delay and delay."

Any retired VA nurses who believe they are affected by the decision can call 1-888-355-1735, or 412-232-4400 to get more information.