Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki
678 F.3d 1013
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- VA faces delays in mental health care and disability-claims processing after a decade of war.
- VCS sought declaratory and injunctive relief against VA procedures and delays affecting veterans.
- District court found limited jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. §511 and declined broad systemic relief.
- VCS appealed; panel reversed on some constitutional claims, en banc review granted.
- Court held jurisdictional bars under §511 preclude review of most systemic delay claims but allow RO-level procedures claim; affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded to dismiss.
- Decision overturns panel on some points and clarifies the scope of §511 and exclusive Veterans Court/Federal Circuit review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §511 bars district court review of VA benefits-related delays | VCS seeks systemic relief, not individual benefits decisions | §511 precludes review of decisions related to benefits | Yes, §511 precludes district-court review of those delays |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to review VA Regional Office procedures | Procedural challenges to RO processes do not review benefits decisions | RO procedures relate to the adjudication of benefits | Jurisdiction exists for RO-procedure claim; merits upheld lower court decision |
| Whether the Veterans Court/Federal Circuit exclusive review divests district court | Constitutional challenges to VA procedures possible in district court | Exclusive review scheme applies to benefits decisions | Exclusive review bars review of benefits decisions but not facial constitutional challenges to RO procedures |
| Whether the district court could review systemic delays without violating §511 | Systemic delay claims are not tied to individual benefits decisions | Systemic delays are inherently tied to benefits decisions; barred | Systemic delay claims are largely barred; district court lacks jurisdiction for those claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Broudy v. Mather, 460 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (limits of §511 preclusion; not all procedural challenges barred)
- Price v. United States, 228 F.3d 420 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (preclusion where deciding reimbursement would require VA action in benefits)
- Thomas v. Principi, 394 F.3d 970 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (extension of preclusion to certain benefit-adjudication contexts)
- Beamon v. Brown, 125 F.3d 965 (6th Cir. 1997) (VJRA exclusive jurisdiction over review of VA benefits decisions; limits on systemic claims)
- Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974) (Robison: facial constitutional challenges to veterans legislation may be reviewable)
- Walters v. Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305 (1985) (non-adversarial design of VA proceedings and due process considerations)
- Vietnam Veterans of America v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (standing and systemic-delay analysis in the VA context)