Theresa MILLIKEN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. J. F. GLEASON, Jr., in his capacity as Administrator of Veterans Affairs, Defendant, Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit1964-05-21No. No. 6266

332 F.2d 122

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal because 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) bars judicial review of Veterans Administration decisions on benefit claims, and this statutory prohibition precludes courts from entertaining challenges to pension forfeitures regardless of the underlying factual or constitutional allegations.

Theresa Milliken appealed a district court dismissal of her amended complaint seeking to overturn a Veterans Administration decision that forfeited her pension benefits due to fraud. Her complaint took the form of a declaratory judgment petition with two counts: one alleging misapplication of law, and another claiming deprivation of constitutional rights, improper seizure of evidence, physical assault by a VA agent, and denial of due process through inadequate administrative procedures.

The court held that regardless of how Milliken framed her suit, it amounted to a request for judicial review of a VA decision. However, federal law expressly prohibits courts from reviewing decisions made by the Veterans Administration regarding benefit claims. The court noted that Congress has broad authority to create rights while limiting judicial remedies, and that veterans' benefits are gratuities rather than vested rights, meaning Congress may modify or withdraw them at any time and under conditions of its choosing.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether courts may review Veterans Administration decisions terminating pension benefits
Whether constitutional and due process claims provide an exception to statutory preclusion of judicial review
The status of veterans' benefits as gratuities versus vested rights

Procedural posture

Theresa Milliken appealed in forma pauperis from a district court order dismissing her amended complaint challenging a Veterans Administration pension forfeiture decision.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in forma pauperis from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissing an amended complaint. The complaint is cast in the form of a petition for declaratory judgment under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and is in two counts. It challenges action of the Board •on Waivers and Forfeitures affirmed by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals forfeiting pension benefits under laws administered by the Veterans’ Administration for fraud as provided in Title 38 U.S.C. § 3503(a). The first count alleges facts which it is asserted disclose an error in the application of pertinent law. In the second count the appellant seeks a •declaration that she “was deprived of her •constitutional and civil rights” by the illegal seizure and use of evidence against her and by the intimidation and physical assault upon her by an agent of the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs and a •declaration that she had been deprived of •due process of law because of inade•quacies of administrative hearing procedures. Wherefore as relief the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the administrative action forfeiting her pension rights for fraud is null and void.

Regardless of its form the plaintiff-appellant’s suit is in clear purpose and effect one to have reviewed and set aside an order of the Veterans’ Administration termininating pension benefits theretofore paid to her. But Title 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) provides with exceptions of no present materiality that “ * * decisions of the Administrator on any question of law or fact concerning a claim for benefits or payments under any law administered by the Veterans’ Administration shall be final and conclusive and no other official or any court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such decision.” This command is categorical, and it is within the power of Congress to issue the command for when it creates rights in an individual against the United States it is “under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts”, United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 331, 39 S.Ct. 464, 465, 63 L.Ed. 1011 (1919), but may “provide only an administrative remedy.” Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 576, 46 S.Ct. 425, 70 L.Ed. 738 (1926). See Marshall v. Crotty, 185 F.2d 622, 628 (C.A.1, 1950).

Moreover, veterans’ benefits are gratuities and establish no vested rights in the recipients so that they may be withdrawn by Congress at any time and under such conditions as Congress may impose.

We affirm on Van Horne v. Hines, 74 App.D.C. 214, 122 F.2d 207, cert. denied, 314 U.S. 689, 62 S.Ct. 360, 86 L.Ed. 552 (1941); Sinlao v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 263, 271 F.2d 846 (1959) and Barefield v. Byrd, 320 F.2d 455 (C.A.5, 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 928, 84 S.Ct. 675, 11 L.Ed.2d 624 (1964), and eases cited. Wellman v. Whittier, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 6, 259 F.2d 163 (1958), on which the appellant relies, is quite different in its facts and is readily distinguishable.

Judgment will be entered affirming the order of the District Court.