Major W.D. Foster v. United States
111 Fed. Cl. 658
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Major W.D. Foster, a member of the Army National Guard, suffered a spinal injury during a mandatory fitness test and became paraplegic.
- Foster applied for Traumatic Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1980A; OSGLI denied three applications for lack of a qualifying traumatic event.
- Foster appealed to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR); the ABCMR upheld the denials and declined further reconsideration, advising judicial review in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.
- Foster filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking payment under TSGLI; the government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing district court jurisdiction is mandated.
- The Court considered whether Tucker Act jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1491) could be invoked by combining 38 U.S.C. § 1980A and 10 U.S.C. § 1552(c), versus whether 38 U.S.C. § 1975 (which vests original jurisdiction in district courts for the SGI subchapter) displaces Tucker Act jurisdiction.
- The Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the Tucker Act because § 1975 provides a statutory remedial scheme directing claims to district court, and transferred the case to a district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Federal Claims has Tucker Act jurisdiction over a §1980A TSGLI claim | Foster: §1980A plus money-mandating regulations and 10 U.S.C. §1552(c) create a substantive right to money, authorizing Tucker Act jurisdiction | Gov’t: §1975 (within the SGI subchapter) confers original jurisdiction on district courts and displaces Tucker Act jurisdiction | Held: No Tucker Act jurisdiction; §1975 provides the remedial scheme directing original jurisdiction to district courts |
| Whether §1552(c) can be read as money-mandating to invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction | Foster: Fisher supports treating military correction statutes as money-mandating; §1552(c) coupled with §1980A compels payment | Gov’t: Fisher does not control; §1975 governs SGI claims and displaces Tucker Act | Held: Court rejected Foster’s conjunctive reading; Fisher does not permit mixing §1552 with the Tucker Act to override §1975 |
| Whether Bormes and related Supreme Court precedents require dismissal or transfer | Foster: sought to proceed in this Court | Gov’t: Bormes/Hinck/Horne show that schemes with their own remedial framework displace Tucker Act jurisdiction | Held: Court applied Bormes/Horne and concluded the statutory scheme displaces Tucker Act; transfer (not dismissal) warranted under 28 U.S.C. §1631 |
| Proper procedural outcome when CFC lacks jurisdiction but another court would have had jurisdiction | Foster: (implicitly) wants merits heard in CFC | Gov’t: case belongs in district court per §1975 | Held: Transfer to a district court under 28 U.S.C. §1631 and venue rules; plaintiff must identify district and show venue under 28 U.S.C. §1391(e)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. FAA, 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Tucker Act jurisdiction principles for Court of Federal Claims)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (discussing money-mandating statutes and Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- United States v. Bormes, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012) (statutory remedial schemes with their own judicial remedies displace Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 133 S. Ct. 2053 (2013) (analysis for whether a statutory scheme displaces Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) (framework for congressional intent to limit Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. 501 (2007) (statutory remedial scheme may preclude Tucker Act claims)