Michael v. Shulkin
695 F. App'x 554
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Stephanie Michael, an honorably discharged disabled U.S. Marine, sued the United States and the VA alleging negligent handling of VA benefits and sought FTCA damages for benefits withheld from 1993–2003.
- District court dismissed her initial FTCA tort complaint for lack of jurisdiction (38 U.S.C. § 511(a)), finding it effectively sought review of VA benefits decisions.
- Michael submitted an SF-95 administrative FTCA claim; the VA denied it as non-cognizable under the FTCA because it involved VA benefit matters.
- Subsequent federal suits were dismissed (and the Fifth Circuit affirmed); the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Michael then petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for a declaratory judgment that it had jurisdiction to hear her FTCA claims; the Veterans Court denied the petition as beyond its authority and for lack of a case or controversy.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court, holding the Veterans Court cannot issue declaratory judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 because it is not a "court of the United States" within the statute’s meaning and thus lacks that power.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Veterans Court could grant a declaratory judgment that it has jurisdiction over FTCA claims | Michael argued the Veterans Court should entertain a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and that the Court mischaracterized her petition | The Veterans Court asserted it lacks authority to issue declaratory judgments and is constrained by Article III justiciability | Held: Veterans Court properly denied relief because it is not a "court of the United States" under § 2201 and therefore cannot issue declaratory judgments |
| Whether the Veterans Court misread the petition as mandamus rather than declaratory relief | Michael contended the court mischaracterized her petition and thus applied wrong procedures and law | Veterans Court and Federal Circuit noted the petition was read as requesting declaratory relief and addressed accordingly | Held: Federal Circuit found the Veterans Court did treat it as a declaratory-judgment petition and denial was proper |
| Whether the Federal Circuit may review district court and Fifth Circuit dismissals of Michael's FTCA suits | Michael asserted those orders were void and raised jurisdictional and reviewability complaints | The government (and procedural rules) showed this court lacks authority to review district court or Fifth Circuit decisions in this context | Held: Federal Circuit declined to review those decisions for lack of jurisdiction to rehear or overturn them |
Key Cases Cited
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (clarifies that "actual controversy" language of the Declaratory Judgment Act refers to Article III justiciability)
- In re Wick, 40 F.3d 367 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Veterans Court is not a "court of the United States" under § 2201 because judges serve fixed terms, so it cannot exercise Declaratory Judgment Act powers)
- Michael v. United States, [citation="616 F. App'x 146"] (5th Cir. 2015) (appeal affirming dismissal of Michael's district-court FTCA suit)
- Michael v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2013 (2016) (Supreme Court denied certiorari)