Burris v. Wilkie
888 F.3d 1352
Fed. Cir.2018Background
- Two consolidated appeals (Burris and Thompson) challenge the Veterans Court’s denial of equitable relief related to VA educational-assistance benefits.
- Burris: son of a permanently and totally disabled veteran; sought retroactive Dependents’ Educational Assistance (DEA) and an extension after caregiving interrupted his studies; VA and Board denied because eligibility expired and regulations bar extensions beyond age 31.
- Thompson: veteran with limited remaining entitlement; VA mistakenly issued a Certificate of Eligibility indicating 36 months remaining; Thompson relied on that representation, transferred entitlement to his son, and later sought reimbursement after VA refused to pay 36 months.
- Both Veterans Court decisions affirmed Board denials, holding only the Secretary may grant equitable monetary relief under 38 U.S.C. § 503 and the Veterans Court lacks authority to provide the extra‑statutory monetary relief sought.
- The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeals and addressed whether the Veterans Court has jurisdiction or inherent equitable power to award the monetary relief requested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Veterans Court has jurisdiction to grant the equitable monetary relief sought | Appellants: Veterans Court can exercise equitable powers to award restitution/retroactive benefits | Government: Jurisdiction limited to review of Secretary decisions under statutes; only Secretary may grant equitable relief under § 503 | Held: Veterans Court lacks jurisdiction to grant extra‑statutory monetary equitable relief; only Secretary has that authority |
| Whether § 7252/§511(a) incorporate § 503 equitable relief into Veterans Court jurisdiction | Appellants: Veterans Court should be able to grant equitable relief in appropriate cases | Government: § 503 is a separate statutory grant to the Secretary and is not incorporated into Veterans Court jurisdiction | Held: § 503 vests discretionary equitable payment authority in the Secretary; omission from § 511(a) implies Congress did not empower the Veterans Court to grant such relief |
| Whether the Veterans Court may use inherent equitable powers to expand its statutory jurisdiction | Appellants: Court has inherent/procedural equitable powers that support broader relief | Government: Any equitable powers are limited to procedural/interlocutory matters and cannot expand jurisdiction | Held: Veterans Court’s inherent equitable powers do not permit it to expand its statutorily defined jurisdiction to award monetary relief |
| Constitutional/sovereign immunity concerns about allowing judicially created monetary relief | Appellants: (implicit) equitable relief is appropriate despite statutory limits | Government: Allowing court‑ordered payments would raise Appropriations Clause and sovereign immunity issues absent clear congressional waiver | Held: Allowing the Veterans Court to award such payments would create serious Appropriations Clause and sovereign‑immunity problems; statutory authorization is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 799 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (statutorily created courts have only the jurisdiction Congress grants)
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988) (courts created by statute have only the jurisdiction conferred by statute)
- King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015) (statutory provisions must be read in their overall statutory context)
- Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) (payments from the Treasury must be authorized by statute)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) (Congress’ express enumerations limit implied exceptions)
- Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Veterans Court may exercise certain procedural/equitable tools, e.g., class certification)
- Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Veterans Court may issue nunc pro tunc judgments when necessary for its statutory role)