VA Judicial Review Act of 1988

LATEST SUMMARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, MILITARY LAW
Mehrkens v. Blank, No. 07-3303
In suit arising out of dispute over VA benefits, the district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where the Veterans' Judicial Review Act of 1988 created an exclusive review procedure for claims related to the denial or delay of benefits. Read more...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/073303p.pdfUnited States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3303

___________

Kent Mehrkens, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Art Blank, M.D.; Gilbert Westreich, *

M.D.; Harry K. Russell, M.D.; *

John Does I; Jane Roes I; C.A. Foye; *

Ronald J. Henke; Charles Milbrandt; *

John Does II; Jane Roes II, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 17, 2008

Filed: February 25, 2009

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Kent Mehrkens commenced this action in Minnesota state court, and the United

States removed the case to federal district court. Mehrkens filed this action against

doctors and employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA officials") seeking

damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and under the principles of Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

1Specifically, Mehrkens filed suit against Art Blank, M.D., Gilbert Westreich,

M.D., Harry K. Russell, M.D., John Does I and Jane Roes I, C.A. Foye, Ronald J.

Henke, John Does II and Jane Roes II, and Charles Milbrandt.

2The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

Mehrkens alleged that it was beyond the scope of the VA officials'1 employment to

lie to him and others about his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and to

withhold treatment from him. According to Mehrkens, these VA officials "interfered

with and deprived" him "of his rights to medical care and other veterans' benefits." He

also alleged that they "knowingly and intentionally conspired . . . to misrepresent the

facts and diagnoses from him and deny him his equal rights and privileges to medical

care and veterans' benefits" and "induced others" to "withhold from [Mehrkens] his

rights to treatment and veterans' benefits." Finally, Mehrkens alleged that the VA

officials violated his due-process rights by withholding information from him about

his diagnosis of PTSD and preventing him from obtaining proper treatment for that

condition. The district court2 concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction,

granted the VA officials' motion for summary judgment, and dismissed Mehrkens's

claims without prejudice. Because we agree that the district court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction, we affirm.

I. Background

A. Facts

Kent Mehrkens, a Vietnam War veteran, sought treatment from the Minneapolis

VA Medical Center after experiencing "a loss of conscious control of his actions."

Mehrkens alleges that physicians at the VA had diagnosed him with PTSD, but

intentionally withheld this information from him and failed to provide treatment for

this condition.

-3-

In 1992, Mehrkens filed a claim for military service-connected PTSD with the

VA Regional Office. Later that year, the VA denied his PTSD claim because "the

diagnosis of PTSD was not supported by the details of any service-connected stressor"

and the medical evidence did not show symptoms of PTSD. In 1993, he reopened his

claim, but the VA denied his claim in 1994, citing no diagnosis of PTSD and stating

that the evidence in the record did not show symptoms of PTSD. The Disabled

American Veterans organization filed a claim on Mehrkens's behalf in 1999. The VA

denied this claim as well because the diagnosis of PTSD was not supported by any

symptoms and also finding that there was no evidence of a specific combat stressor.

In 2001, Mehrkens moved to reopen his claim, but the VA later ruled that there was

no new and material evidence to justify reopening his case. In 2003, Mehrkens filed

a Notice of Disagreement with the decision. Upon review, the VA reversed its prior

decisions and granted VA benefits to Mehrkens for PTSD, retroactive to 1992. That

same year Mehrkens was issued two payments for retroactive benefits totaling

$216,246. Mehrkens currently receives $2,610 monthly in benefits payments.

B. Procedural History

In 2004, after being granted his retroactive payments, Mehrkens filed a claim

with the VA under the Federal Tort Claims Act for medical malpractice and

negligence. In 2005, he filed the current action in Minnesota state court, but the

United States removed the case to federal court. Mehrkens alleged that because the

VA doctors lied to him about his diagnosis and withheld treatment from him, they

"deprived him of his rights to medical care and other veterans' benefits." Mehrkens

sought damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under the principles of Bivens. He also

sought damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, alleging that the VA officials "knowingly

and intentionally conspired" to misrepresent his treatment and "withheld treatment and

benefits." Finally, he alleged that VA officials violated his due-process rights by

withholding information about his diagnosis and preventing him from obtaining

proper treatment. He asserts that this violation "deprived him of his rights to medical

care and other veterans' benefits." Mehrkens insists that he is not attempting to

-4-

relitigate his benefits case. According to Mehrkens, he seeks damages only for the VA

officials' alleged misrepresentations about his PTSD and the alleged conspiracy to

withhold information from him about his condition. Their acts, he contends, prevented

him from obtaining proper medical treatment outside the VA.

The district court found that because the Veterans' Judicial Review Act of 1988

(VJRA), 38 U.S.C. § 511(a), created an exclusive review procedure for veterans to

resolve their disputes, it lacked jurisdiction over Mehrkens's claims, despite

Mehrkens's contention that they sounded in constitutional and tort law. The district

court found that because Mehrkens was essentially challenging a decision affecting

his benefits by bringing a constitutional claim, the district court's jurisdiction was

preempted by the VJRA. See generally Hicks v. Veterans Admin., 961 F.2d 1367,

1369 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that a First Amendment challenge to a denial of benefits

was beyond the reach of federal court jurisdiction). The district court found that

because Mehrkens sought review of the VA's actions taken in connection with his

claim for benefits, this effectively amounted to a challenge to the underlying benefits

decision. Weaver v. United States, 98 F.3d 518, 519–20 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding that

claims for veteran disability benefits are unreviewable in federal courts).

The district court also denied Mehrkens's Bivens claim, finding that because

Congress had set up an elaborate remedial scheme regarding VA benefits, the Bivens

action could not lie. Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 388–89 (1983) (holding that an

elaborate remedial system prevented a NASA employee from bringing a Bivens action

based on a First Amendment violation against a NASA director); see also Schweiker

v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 428–29 (1988) (holding that Social Security recipients did

not have a private right of action against federal administrators because Congress set

up other remedies). In short, because Congress provided an exclusive review

procedure, it has indicated that the federal courts should not exercise jurisdiction over

VJRA claims. Sugrue v. Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 12 (2d Cir. 1994) (declining to imply

-5-

a Bivens remedy against VA employees arising from denial of benefits); accord

Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1161 (5th Cir. 1995).

Based on these principles of law, the district court concluded that it lacked

subject matter jurisdiction, granted the VA officials' motion for summary judgment,

and dismissed Mehrkens's case without prejudice.

II. Discussion

On appeal, Mehrkens asks this court to reverse the lower court's summary

judgment disposition, arguing that VA officials interfered with his constitutional right

to seek medical treatment and that the district court has jurisdiction to hear this

constitutional claim. Moreover, he argues that the district court did not properly

address his §§ 1983 and 1985 claims. We affirm.

A. Standard of Review

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard

as the district court. Henerey v. City of St. Charles, Sch. Dist., 200 F.3d 1128, 1131

(8th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment should be granted if the evidence, viewed in the

light most favorable to the nonmoving party, indicates that no genuine issue of

material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon

mere allegations or denials contained in the pleadings, but must, by sworn affidavits

and other evidence, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Mehrkens alleges that the VA officials interfered with his right to get private

medical care by misrepresenting his condition. Mehrkens argues that he should be

allowed to seek redress in federal court because the VA officials' misrepresentations

violated his federal constitutional rights. Mehrkens further contends that if the VJRA

3The VJRA can be found in various sections of Title 38 of the United States

Code.

-6-

is his exclusive remedy then he is left without a remedy because the VJRA does not

give the VA jurisdiction to grant damages for withholding of treatment. We hold that

the VJRA is Mehrkens's exclusive remedy and affirm.

1. VJRA

In 1988, Congress enacted the VJRA3 to establish a framework for the

adjudication of veterans' benefits claims. The process begins with the veteran filing

a claim for benefits with a regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs and

includes several levels of appeal. The regional office decides all questions of law and

fact as they relate to the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 511(a). If aggrieved, the claimant may then

appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA). 38 U.S.C. § 7104. BVA decisions

may be appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, to which Congress

vested exclusive jurisdiction to review BVA decisions. 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a).

Claimants may appeal unsatisfactory decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims to the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such

matters. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Finally, a claimant may appeal to the Supreme Court. 38

U.S.C. § 7291.

2. Bivens and its Progeny

In Bivens, the Supreme Court established a right of individuals to sue individual

federal agents for damages for unconstitutional conduct in violation of the Fourth

Amendment. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 389. The Court later extended this holding to

encompass violations of the Fifth Amendment, Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228,

248–49 (1979), and the Eighth Amendment, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 32–33

(1980).

-7-

Later, in Bush v. Lucas, the Supreme Court held that a Bivens claim could not

lie for a First Amendment violation by a Civil Service Commission supervisor. 462

U.S. 367, 368 (1983). The Bush Court assumed that a federal right had, in fact, been

violated and that the petitioner did not have an adequate remedy apart from a Bivens

action. Id. at 373. But the Court noted that constitutional challenges are fully

cognizable under Congress's elaborate Civil Service Commission scheme. Id. at 386.

The Court stressed that the fact that the wrong would otherwise go unredressed was

irrelevant. Id. at 388. The real question was whether Congress had set up a plan after

careful attention to conflicting policy considerations. Id. If Congress had set up such

an elaborate scheme in a particular area, then courts should not augment that scheme

by creating a Bivens remedy. Id. Because Congress could better evaluate the impact

of a Bivens remedy, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction. Id. at 389–90. That

same year, in Chappell v. Wallace, the Court declined to extend Bivens to military

personnel seeking damages for constitutional violations. 462 U.S. 296, 297 (1983).

Because Congress had plenary control over the military and had not provided for

damages remedies in this context, the Court would not encroach upon Congress's

authority and judicially create a new remedy. Id. at 301, 307. Finally, in Schweiker v.

Chilicky, the Supreme Court refused to judicially create a due-process violation

remedy for the denial of Social Security disability benefits because Congress had set

up a complex remedial scheme in the Social Security area but had not created a Bivens

remedy. 487 U.S. 412, 414 (1988); see also United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669,

684 (1987) (refusing to create a Bivens remedy for a due-process violation by a

military superior for fear that liability would be increased by a judicially-created

remedy).

In the instant case, Mehrkens attempts to bring a Bivens action against VA

officials for alleged constitutional violations committed while handling his benefits

claim. We note the Supreme Court has applied Bivens sparingly outside of the Fourth

Amendment context and never in the context of a complex statutory remedial scheme.

We decline to create a Bivens remedy in this case. See Bush, 462 U.S. at 389–90.

-8-

Congress has preempted the field for veterans' benefits and set up an elaborate

remedial scheme and, therefore, that body is better suited to augment that scheme with

new remedies. See Schweiker, 487 U.S. at 414. Considering Congress's careful

structuring of the VJRA, we will not assume that Congress inadvertently failed to

provide Bivens-type relief. See supra Part II.B.1.

Furthermore, Mehrkens is bringing a claim only for a delay of benefits. Had he

been granted benefits in 1992 instead of 2004, he would not have brought the current

action. In this case, there is no meaningful legal difference between a delay of benefits

and an outright denial of benefits. In either case, Congress has charged the VJRA with

exclusive jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 511(a)–7292. This holding aligns us with our

sister circuits who have addressed similar issues. See Beamon v. Brown, 125 F.3d 965,

966 (6th Cir. 1997) (refusing constitutional challenge for delays in veterans claims in

federal court system); Weaver v. United States, 98 F.3d 518, 519–20 (10th Cir. 1996)

(refusing jurisdiction where claimant brought a conspiracy and fraud challenge

because VA employees allegedly concealed his medical records); Hicks v. Small, 69

F.3d 967, 969–70 (9th Cir. 1995) (refusing to allow a Bivens action due to the VJRA's

comprehensive, remedial structure); Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1159–60 (5th

Cir. 1995) (refusing to grant a Bivens remedy for constitutional violations because

Congress had set up an elaborate remedial structure through the VJRA and because

appellant was merely "complaining about a denial of benefits"); Sugrue v. Derwinski,

26 F.3d 8, 10 (2d Cir. 1994) (refusing to recognize a Bivens action for alleged dueprocess

violations for failure of VA doctors to maintain medical records with accuracy

and completeness). Because we lack subject matter jurisdiction, Mehrkens's claim is

denied.

C. Sections 1983 and 1985 Claims

Mehrkens also argues that his case should be remanded so the district court may

expressly rule on his §§ 1983 and 1985 claims. Because these claims are without

merit, we decline to remand.

-9-

Torrey Thompson_Marine needs support

Please DO NOT REPLY to this message. Replies will not be seen. Use the information at the bottom for e-mail address changes, subscription issues, and to contact GOPUSA.

-- The following e-mail comes from one of our sponsoring advertisers. Through their support, GOPUSA can continue to bring you the best array of conservative news, information, commentary, and discussions. A Decorated Marine needs your support more than ever. Torrey Thompson is in danger of serving time in jail for a crime that he did not commit. Thompson is a former police officer of DeKalb County, Georgia and a Marine Corps veteran. This dedicated man does not deserve to be convicted all for doing his job; enforcing the law and protecting the public. Torrey Thompson is charged with felony murder, manslaughter and aggravated assault arising out of an incident which occurred on September 12, 2006. Thompson was called for back-up along with two other officers in an apartment complex in Decatur, Georgia. The two officers that called for back-up were Officers Knock and Mondesir. They were investigating a stolen vehicle in the apartment complex, which had been identified in a hit and run incident earlier that day. When Officer Knock stopped the vehicle, the occupants jumped and fled on foot. Knock and Mondesir contacted the owner of the vehicle who informed them that the vehicle had been stolen. The owner identified one of the occupants to be Lorenzo Mathews. Mathews was already wanted in connection with a shooting earlier in the month. Knock and Mondesir were given permission to search the second floor of the apartment building where they believed Mathews to be hiding. Thompson was then called for back-up along with Officer Nunn and Sergeant Berg. Officers Knock and Mathews positioned themselves at the rear of the apartment on the ground floor. Officer Thompson positioned himself next to Officer Knock at the base of the stairwell. As the Officers entered the building, Mathews was standing in the kitchen area. Mathews fled out the back and down the stairs while Officers Thompson and Knock proceeded to yell “STOP, GET TO THE GROUND” and then ordered Mathews to “SHOW YOUR HANDS”. Matthews refused the orders and ran down the stairs pointing what appeared to be a gun at Officer Thompson. Mathews then pointed the item at Knock. Officer Knock then yelled “SHOW YOUR HANDS”, “STOP”, “DROP YOUR WEAPON”, and “GIVE UP”. Once again, Mathews ignored Knock’s commands and lunged towards him. Officer Knock fired his 9-millimeter Beretta four times hitting Mathews once in the chest. Officer Knock did not think that he hit Mathews because he then jumped over the railing of the staircase and ran towards Officer Thompson. Officer Knock did not fire again because Thompson was in his line of fire. Knock yelled to Thompson to “shoot him”. Observing something dark in Matthews hand and believing it to be the butt of a pistol, Officer Thompson shot his 9-millimeter Beretta twice. Mathews jumped the backyard fence and fled the scene towards a wooded area behind the apartment building. Officer Thompson chased Mathews and yelled for Mathews to “STOP” as he chased him through a parking lot towards the wooded area. Mathews turned and Officer Thompson fired his Beretta four times because he feared that Mathews was armed and would take an offensive position against him as he entered the woods. As Mathews entered the woods he stopped and looked at Officer Thompson. Officer Thompson proceeded to fire four more times. Mathews ran through the woods and jumped over a fence into a shopping center. When the K-9 unit arrived, they found Lorenzo Mathews located dead in the shopping center. A large knife was found at the shopping center fence where Mathews had climbed over. Officer Torrey Thompson is now being charged with felony murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, and violation of oath by an officer. These outrageous charges against Thompson are completely unjust. Officer Thompson was performing his job the way he was trained to do. He knew that Lorenzo Mathews was a dangerous felon who had earlier demonstrated a willingness to place others in harms way to avoid arrest. Thompson took the necessary actions to keep this criminal off the streets of the community he was trying to protect. Officer Thompson was indicted in July 2008, almost two years after the incident occurred. It is not fair that this dedicated officer could spend time in jail for protecting the public. LELDF is assisting to help Officer Torrey Thompson with his expensive legal fees and expert witness testimony, but we need your support. But, we cannot do it alone. Thompson needs to know that his fellow Americans support the job he does and that we appreciate his bravery. LELDF is a non-profit organization founded to support and defend police officers from unfair charges for actions taken in the line of duty. This Decorated Marine has four letters of commendation and has never been disciplined. This is not a police officer who deserves to spend any time jail for a crime that he did not commit. The two Officers, Knock and Thompson, both believed that their lives were in danger. Mathews was a dangerous suspect who was making aggressive moves towards the officers. They believe that they were justified in the actions they took. Why should Torrey Thompson, a dedicated Police Officer and Decorated Marine, have to endure the consequences of these charges because of this criminal? You can help Officer Thompson obtain justice by showing your support as a fellow American who respects the sacrifices he makes for his community. LELDF is asking you to make a contribution of $25, $50, $100, or any other amount that you can afford. Your tax-deductible donation will make a huge impact on Officer Torrey Thompson’s life. We thank you for your support. Sincerely, David H. Martin Chairman GOPUSA Friends E-mail List The content of this e-mailer does not constitute an endorsement by GOPUSA. This message was sent to GOPUSA subscribers on behalf of a sponsor. For questions regarding the content of this e-mailer, please contact the advertiser directly. Please note that this list is different than our daily news and commentary list. For more information about the GOPUSA Friends List, please click here. ++ Follow this link if you no longer wish to receive GOPUSA Friends e-mailers. ++ Need to change your e-mail address? Click here. Copyright © 2000-2009, GOPUSA.com A division of Endeavor Media Group, LLC P.O. Box 891354 Houston, TX 77289 ++ Contact Us

Letter to Obama VA Health Care Buget

Stand Up for Veterans Updatehttp://www.fundingforvets.org/PartnershipLetterObama.pdf The Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform Representing America’s Veterans The Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform ■ P.O. Box 71084 ■ Washington, DC 20024 The American Legion 1608 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 861-2700 www.legion.org AMVETS (American Veterans) 4647 Forbes Blvd. Lanham, MD 20706 (301) 459-9600 www.amvets.org Blinded Veterans Association 477 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 (202) 371-8880 www.bva.org Disabled American Veterans 807 Maine Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20024 (202) 554-3501 www.dav.org Jewish War Veterans of the USA 1811 R Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20009 (202) 265-6280 www.jwv.org Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A., Inc. 5413-B Backlick Road Springfield, VA 22151 (703) 642-5360 www.purpleheart.org Paralyzed Veterans of America 801 18th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 872-1300 www.pva.org Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 200 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 (202) 543-2239 www.vfw.org Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. 8605 Cameron Street, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301) 585-4000 www.va.org January 9, 2009 The Honorable Barack Obama President-elect of the United States Presidential Transition Office Washington, DC Dear President-elect Obama: On behalf of the eight million veterans represented by the nine national veterans service organizations in The Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform, we are writing to urge you to recommend passage of advance appropriations legislation for the FY 2010 appropriations cycle in your first budget request and legislative program. We were pleased to read recent news accounts reporting Veterans Affairs Secretary-designee Eric Shinseki’s support for the advance appropriations proposal. The inclusion of this proposal in your first budget submission would send a strong signal to the leadership of the 111th Congress and the veterans’ community of your firm commitment to change the funding process for veterans’ health care. Notwithstanding the recent achievements of the 110th Congress for veterans, VA has received its annual funding for health care programs late in 19 of the last 22 years. Over the past seven years, VA received its final budget an average of three months after the start of the new fiscal year. Not knowing when or what level of funding will be approved from year to year hinders the ability of VA officials to efficiently plan and responsibly manage this exceptional health care system. Compounding the problem are new demands placed on the VA system: over the past decade the number of veterans treated at VA facilities has almost doubled and the newest generation of wartime veterans has increasingly complex mental and physical health care needs that may require a lifetime of care. The Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform remains committed to fundamentally change the way veterans’ health care is funded. While mandatory funding has been the focus over the past several years, The Partnership developed an alternative approach to achieve the same critical goals as mandatory funding – sufficient, timely and predictable funding – which is embodied in the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform Act (S. 3527 / H.R. 6939) introduced last year by Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel Akaka and House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Filner, respectively. This legislation would authorize Congress to approve appropriations for veterans’ health care one year in advance of the start of the fiscal year, and add greater transparency and integrity to VA’s internal budget process to ensure sufficient funding levels are ultimately approved. President-elect Barack Obama January 9, 2009 Page 2 The Veterans Health Care Budget Reform Act received strong bipartisan support from leaders in the 110th Congress, including you, Sen. John McCain and others. Along with The Partnership , the legislation has also been endorsed by The Military Coalition, comprised of 35 organizations representing more than 5.5 million members of the uniformed services – active duty, National Guard, Reserve, retired, former officers, and their families – and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). In addition, a growing list of more than two dozen former highranking VA officials, including medical center directors, regional health care network directors, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and Secretaries, have joined together to support this commonsense funding reform. A national survey commissioned by Disabled American Veterans (DAV) last year also showed that more than 80% of the American public supports reforming VA health care funding through an advance appropriations process. Mr. President-elect, we agree with your statement that it is time to, “… end the unpredictability and inadequacy of VA’s discretionary funding process and instead, use an advance appropriations process that would allow Congress to provide VA health care dollars in advance and allow for improved planning and predictability.” As you and your transition team continue developing your first budget request and legislative program, we urge you to include clear language requesting advance appropriations for VA medical care accounts. We stand ready to work with you, VA Secretary-designee Eric Shinseki, OMB Director-designee Peter Orzag, and others in your transition team and incoming Administration to ensure that this vital budgetary reform is enacted into law early in the 111th Congress. Respectfully, JOHN SOMMER JAMES B. KING Executive Director Executive Director The American Legion AMVETS (American Veterans) THOMAS MILLER DAVID W.GORMAN Executive Director Executive Director Blinded Veterans Association Washington Headquarters Disabled American Veterans HERB ROSENBLEETH JOHN P. LEONARD, III National Executive Director Acting National Adjutant Jewish War Veterans of the USA Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A., Inc. President-elect Barack Obama January 9, 2009 Page 3 HOMER TOWNSEND ROBERT WALLACE Executive Director Executive Director Paralyzed Veterans of America Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States RICHARD F. WEIDMAN Director of Government Relations Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. c: Veterans Affairs Secretary-designee Eric Shinseki OMB Director-designee Peter Orzag Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi House Minority Leader John Boehner Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel Akaka Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Burr House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Filner House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Ranking Member Steve Buyer Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Thad Cochran House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Jerry Lewis Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Judd Gregg House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt House Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan More Info DAV and Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform Call on Obama to Change VA Funding Process In a letter sent this week to the President-elect, DAV, along with the eight other VSOs comprising the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform, called on Obama to fulfill his campaign promise to change the way veterans’ health care is funded. The Partnership reminded the President-elect that under the current appropriations process, VA has received its annual budget for health care beyond the start of the new fiscal year in 19 of the last 22 years. During the campaign, Obama wrote that the time has come to “…end the unpredictability and inadequacy of VA’s discretionary funding process and instead, use an advanced appropriations process that would allow Congress to provide VA health care dollars in advanced and allow for improved planning and predictability.” The Partnership asked President-elect Obama to include advance appropriations for VA medical care in his first budget request. VA Secretary-designee Shinseki Endorses Advance Appropriations in Run Up to Confirmation Hearings A pair of news stories published this week discussed VA Secretary-designee Gen. Eric Shinseki’s support for advanced appropriations for VA health care as well as other issues he will be asked about during his Senate confirmation hearing on January 14. The Associated Press (“Shinseki Pledges to Fix Gaps in Veterans’ Care”) reported about the contents of a questionnaire completed by Shinseki in which he “urged Congress to set VA funding a year in advance to minimize political pressures” because the current VA funding system “created ‘significant management difficulties’ that delayed medical care.” Congressional Quarterly ("Common Threads in Questions for Shinseki") suggested that Shinseki-confirmation hearings would likely include questions about the Secretary-designee’s support for VA health funding reform. The article also discussed expectations that Shinseki’s questioning would include a discussion of his ideas about how to better treat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injuries (TBI). About the Stand Up for Veterans Initiative Stand Up for Veterans is an initiative of the Disabled American Veterans, an organization of 1.4 million disabled veterans who are focused on building better lives for disabled veterans and their families. The initiative seeks to find public policy solutions for all veterans, particularly those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, who have incurred devastating injuries and disabilities, including traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder and other psychological wounds of war. Please visit www.standup4vets.org to learn more about this effort. Stand up for veterans. They stood up for us.

CAVC Docket 03-0639 Sharon L. Anderson 10/31/2003 8:11 AMhttp://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDF/USCAVCDocket030639Sharo.pdf

http://www.vetapp.gov/docket/docket.asp?id=03-0639&submit1=Search+for+Docket+Number

Page 1 of 2

Home Court

U. S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Sharon L. Anderson,

V.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Pro se: Appellant Appearances for Appellee

Sharon L. Anderson

1058 Summit

P.O. Box 4384

St. Paul MN 55104-0384

651-776-5835

Ari Nazarov, Esq.

202-639-4848

BVA Information

BVA Decision Mail Date: 12/4/02

Date Explanation Received

3/28/03 FEE CVA $50.00

Date Filings and Proceedings

3/28/03 FILED:US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims' Filing Fee - $50.00 (Not Assigned)

3/28/03 Notice of Appeal (MOFFEG) (DESHAP)

4/3/03 Notice of Docketing for bva dec by 5-5-03; dr by 6-2-03 (DESHAP)

4/4/03 Copy of BVA Decision (MOFFEG) (M - 4/4/03) (TOBESS)

4/7/03 RECEIVED: Correspondence from appellant (M - 4/9/03) (TOBESS)

6/2/03 Appearance of Ari Nazarov, atty for the appellee (M - 6/2/03) (TOBESS)

6/2/03 Designation of Record (MOFFEG) (M - 6/2/03) (TOBESS)

6/3/03 Notice to Counter-Designate Record by 7/8/2003 (TOBESS)

8/6/03 Record on Appeal (M - 8/6/03) (TOBESS)

8/6/03 Notice to File Brief 10/6/2003 (TOBESS)

8/18/03 RECEIVED: Returned mail, appellant's notice to file brief; resent 8/20/03, appellant's brief due 10/20/03

(TOBESS)

10/30/03

ORDERED that, by 11/19/2003, the appellant must explain why the Crt should not dismiss this appeal because

of the appellant's failure to comply with the Crt's rules; proceedings are stayed until further order of the Court.

(TOBESS) (SMT)

End of Docket

(Image)

Home Court Court Download Contact

USCAVC Docket 03-0639 Sharon L. Anderson 10/31/2003 8:11 AM

http://www.vetapp.gov/docket/docket.asp?id=03-0639&submit1=Search+for+Docket+Number Page 1 of 2

Forms

Court

Fees

Download Contact

L Ufsky&Jr

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

L Ufsky&Jr

View SlideShare document or Upload your own. (tags: andersonbrainardmnmichar... scapcommittmentsmnjudges...)