Melvin v. Shulkin
714 F. App'x 1002
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Pamela Melvin filed a service-connected PTSD claim in 2001; the Board denied it in a 2010 decision mailed to the wrong address, which she received in 2012.
- Within the statutory appeal period she filed motions to vacate the Board decision for substantive error and procedural due-process violation; the Board later denied the procedural-motion relief.
- Melvin filed a notice of appeal to the Veterans Court; the Veterans Court dismissed the appeal as premature because the Board had not reached a final decision on the substantive motion; this Court affirmed that dismissal in 2015.
- While pursuing those appeals, Melvin moved for sanctions (March 2014) alleging VA attorneys hacked her computers, deleted/altered legal files, and interfered with her litigation; she sought $2 million.
- The Veterans Court reopened the matter solely to decide the sanctions motion, acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations, but found Melvin’s evidence insufficient to prove misconduct or damages and denied sanctions; Melvin appealed that denial to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court may review Veterans Court’s denial of sanctions based on alleged constitutional violations (Fourth and Fifth Amendments) | Melvin: Veterans Court’s denial raises constitutional questions (illegal search/seizure, due process), so this Court has jurisdiction to review. | VA/Veterans Court: The sanctions decision is a factual determination about credibility/evidence and thus outside this Court’s statutory jurisdiction. | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; sanctions denial is a factual matter unreviewable here. |
| Whether Melvin’s constitutional characterization transforms factual disputes into reviewable legal questions | Melvin: Labels the claims constitutional to invoke appellate review. | VA/Veterans Court: Labeling does not convert underlying factual disputes into legal questions; Helfer controls. | Court: Rejected the tactic—constitutional labels do not confer jurisdiction when the dispute is essentially factual. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir.) (evaluation and weighing of evidence are factual determinations outside this Court’s review)
- Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (characterizing a question as constitutional does not confer jurisdiction over otherwise unreviewable factual issues)
- Malik v. McDonald, [citation="618 F. App'x 1007"] (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Veterans Court’s decision not to impose sanctions is factual and unreviewable)
- Melvin v. McDonald, [citation="634 F. App'x 309"] (Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of Melvin’s related premature appeal and noting sanctions issues are factual)