Opinion
Case No. 01-2428-JWL.
February 15, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed suit against defendant seeking monetary damages and other relief in connection with defendant's processing of plaintiff's claim for various veteran's benefits. This matter is presently before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. #7) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1); plaintiff's motion for hearing and oral argument (doc. #11); and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (doc. #16). For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and plaintiff's motions are denied.
Background
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he is an honorably discharged veteran, having served in the United States Navy between 1972 and 1975. According to plaintiff, he contracted a chronic skin condition while serving in the Navy. After his subsequent discharge, plaintiff began the process of applying for various veterans' benefits. Plaintiff alleges that he has had a host of problems in attempting to secure all the veterans' benefits which he claims are his due. He also asserts that he has pursued his claim through various avenues, including the Board of Veterans Appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Plaintiff contends that none of these avenues has afforded him adequate relief and he now asks this court for relief.
Besides challenging the underlying benefits determination, plaintiff's complaint contains additional allegations that defendant has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), has interfered with plaintiff's due process rights and has failed to provide certain forms in violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Discussion
In its motion to dismiss, defendant contends that plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed as 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) precludes federal district court review of VA administrative decisions. Indeed, the court has recently addressed this precise issue. See Velayo v. United States, No. 01-2277-JWL, 2001 WL 1251669 (D.Kan. Oct. 3, 2001). As the court recognized in Velayo, federal law regarding veterans' benefits provides that decisions regarding veterans' benefits are unreviewable in the federal district courts:
The Secretary [of Veterans' Affairs] shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provisions of benefits by the Secretary to veterans. . . . [T]he decision of the Secretary as to any such question shall be final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by any other official or by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.Id. at *1 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) (emphasis added) and citing Weaver v. United States, 98 F.3d 518, 519-20 (10th Cir. 1996) (affirming district court's dismissal of a plaintiff's claim for veterans' disability benefits)).
In short, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. For this reason, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Moreover, plaintiff's motion for hearing and oral argument must be denied as plaintiff expressly seeks such argument for the sole purpose of having the court appoint an arbitrator or mediator to resolve plaintiff's claim for disability benefits without protracted litigation.
Apparently conceding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the decision concerning his receipt of VA benefits, plaintiff urges instead that this court has jurisdiction over his ADA claim, his due process claims and his FOIA claim. In analyzing these claims, the court examines the substance of the allegations in plaintiff's complaint, rather than plaintiff's labels, to determine their true nature. See Weaver, 98 F.3d at 520. With respect to his ADA claim, plaintiff contends only that he was eligible for VA life insurance benefits, that the VA denied him life insurance, and that the denial violated his rights under the ADA. See Complaint ¶¶ 16, 21. With respect to his due process claims, plaintiff alleges that defendant has failed to expeditiously process his claim, has failed to provide certain documents, has ignored relevant legal precedent, has refused to discuss the status of his claim, has failed to provide him a jury trial, and has failed to issue a supplemental statement of the case. See, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 5, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18. Plaintiff's FOIA allegations are that defendant refused to provide VA Form 16-10 and VA Form 2507 (and perhaps other unspecified forms) concerning plaintiff's compensation and benefit exam. See Complaint ¶ 19 and Exhibit A thereto.
As defendant highlights in its papers and supports by affidavit, plaintiff has already appealed the decision concerning his life insurance benefits to the Board of Veterans Appeals. His appeal was filed on June 27, 2001 and is still pending with the Board.
These claims, then, seek review of actions taken in connection with the denial of plaintiff's administrative claim for benefits. They are, in substance, nothing more than a challenge to various acts and omissions concerning the underlying benefits decision. Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is therefore appropriate. See Weaver, 98 F.3d at 520 (affirming district court's dismissal of "conspiracy," "fraud" and "misrepresentation" claims where allegations in complaint revealed that such claims were simply challenges to underlying benefits decision); see also Beamon v. Brown, 125 F.3d 965, 972-74 (6th Cir. 1997) (collecting cases in which courts "have held repeatedly that they lack jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to VA benefits decisions" and concluding that district court lacked jurisdiction over claim challenging the constitutionality of the procedures by which the VA adjudicated claims for benefits); Sugrue v. Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 11-12 (2d Cir. 1994) (district court lacked jurisdiction over complaint challenging benefits determination including due process and FOIA claims where those claims were based solely on acts or omissions concerning benefits determination); Marsh v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 921 F. Supp. 360, 361 (N.D.W.Va. 1995) (dismissing ADA and Fourteenth Amendment claims where claims essentially sought review of VA decision regarding eligibility for benefits). Moreover, plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment must be denied as it seeks certain rulings with respect to plaintiff's FOIA, due process and ADA claims as well as his claim concerning the underlying benefits determination.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. #7) is granted; plaintiff's motion for hearing and oral argument (doc. #11) is denied; and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (doc. #16) is denied. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.