Eugene Newcombe v. United States, 933 F.3d 915

Newcombe, an honorably discharged veteran, applied to the VA for disability benefits for corneal ulcerations; initially denied, then in Sept. 2014 the VA informed him he was service‑connected with a 10% rating.
In Feb. 2015 the VA sent a letter stating corneal ulcerations were not service‑connected; the same mailing prominently stated his current benefit payment would remain unchanged and his combined rating stayed at 100%.
In May 2015 the VA corrected the February letter, finding the statement about corneal ulcerations was a clear and unmistakable error (CUE), apologized, and said the error did not affect his overall combined evaluation.
Newcombe met with the VA Regional Office Director, who apologized and said an employee had made errors in reviewing his file.
After exhausting VA administrative appeals, Newcombe sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging negligent supervision and training caused him physical and emotional distress; the district court dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court lacked jurisdiction because resolving Newcombe’s FTCA claim would require review of a VA benefits determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court has subject‑matter jurisdiction over Newcombe's FTCA negligence claim tied to a VA benefits determination	Newcombe: jurisdiction exists because the VA admitted error in the May 2015 CUE letter, so the district court would not need to review a benefits decision	Government: VJRA bars district courts from adjudicating claims that require review of VA benefits determinations, even if framed as FTCA negligence claims	Held: No jurisdiction; resolving the negligence claim would require review of the VA benefits decision and is foreclosed by 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) and controlling precedent
Whether a Board finding of a clear and unmistakable error (CUE) converts a benefits decision into a mere “mistake” or otherwise removes the need for judicial review of the benefits determination	Newcombe: a CUE is a special admission of error that eliminates the need for the court to review the benefits decision (or makes it a non‑decision/mistake)	Government: A CUE is a regulatory mechanism within the VA appeals system but is not an admission of legal negligence or a removal of the benefits determination from judicial review	Held: A CUE does not remove the benefits decision from review or constitute an admission of negligence; jurisdiction remains barred

ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 645 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of de novo review for subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Jones v. United States, 727 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013) (FTCA suits requiring review of VA benefits determinations are barred by 38 U.S.C. § 511(a))
Price v. United States, 228 F.3d 420 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (district courts cannot adjudicate claims that require reviewing VA benefits handling)
King v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 728 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2013) (VA admission of error does not equal admission of negligence)