Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al
Filing
537
ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenGRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS 490 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS 495 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2013)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA; TIM
MICHAEL JOSEPHS; and WILLIAM
BLAZINSKI, individually, on
behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; SWORDS
TO PLOWSHARES: VETERANS RIGHTS
ORGANIZATION; BRUCE PRICE;
FRANKLIN D. ROCHELLE; LARRY
MEIROW; ERIC P. MUTH; DAVID C.
DUFRANE; and KATHRYN MCMILLANFORREST,
Plaintiffs,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
v.
No. C 09-0037 CW
ORDER GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING
IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Docket
No. 490) AND
GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Docket
No. 495)
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; JOHN
BRENNAN, Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE;
CHARLES T. HAGEL, Secretary of
Defense; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE ARMY; JOHN M. MCHUGH,
United States Secretary of the
Army; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney
General of the United States;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS; and ERIC K.
SHINSEKI, United States Secretary
of Veterans Affairs,
Defendants.
________________________________/
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Vietnam Veterans of America, Swords to Plowshares:
Veterans Rights Organization, Bruce Price, Franklin D. Rochelle,
Larry Meirow, Eric P. Muth, David C. Dufrane, Tim Michael Josephs,
William Blazinski and Kathryn McMillan-Forrest move for partial
summary judgment, holding that Defendants U.S. Department of
Defense and its Secretary Charles T. Hagel (collectively, DOD) and
the U.S. Department of the Army and its Secretary John M. McHugh
(collectively, Army) have legal obligations under the
2
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to provide notice and medical
3
care to test subjects.
4
any of their class or individual claims against the remaining
5
Defendants or on any of their other claims against the DOD and the
6
Army.
7
Eric Holder; the Central Intelligence Agency and its Director John
8
Brennan (collectively, CIA); the DOD; the Army; and the U.S.
9
Department of Veterans Affairs and its Secretary Eric K. Shinseki
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
(collectively, DVA) oppose Plaintiffs’ motion and move for summary
11
judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ individual and class claims against
12
them.1
13
their arguments at the hearing, the Court GRANTS in part and
14
DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion and GRANTS in part and DENIES in
15
part Defendants’ cross-motion.
Plaintiffs do not seek summary judgment on
Defendants United States of America; U.S. Attorney General
Having considered the papers filed by the parties and
16
BACKGROUND
17
“Military experiments using service member[s] as subjects
18
have been an integral part of U.S. chemical weapons program,
19
producing tens of thousands of ‘soldier volunteers’ experimentally
20
exposed to a wide range of chemical agents from World War I to
21
about 1975.”
22
VET001_015677.
23
establishment of the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS).”
24
Decl., Ex. 1, Docket No. 496-1, PLTF014154.
25
part of the War Department and became part of the U.S. Army on
Patterson Decl., Ex. 3, Docket No. 491-3,
“On June 28, 1918, the President directed the
Gardner
CWS was originally
26
27
28
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the Court
substitutes Director Brennan and Secretary Hagel in place of their
predecessors.
2
1
July 1, 1920.
2
At the end of World War I, CWS was consolidated at the Edgewood
3
Arsenal in Maryland.
4
Medical Research Division to conduct research directed at
5
providing a defense against chemical agents.”
6
1, Docket No. 496-1, PLTF014154.
7
Medical Research Division continued to carry out experiments
8
regarding chemical warfare agents, including experiments that used
9
human subjects, mostly drawn from personnel working at Edgewood
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Arsenal.
Gardner Decl., Ex. 16, Docket No. 496-22, 27-28.
Id.
In about 1922, “the CWS created a
Gardner Decl., Ex.
Between 1920 and 1936, the
Gardner Decl., Ex. 16, Docket No. 496-22, 28.
“Formal authority to recruit and use volunteer subjects in
12
[chemical warfare] experiments was initiated in 1942.”
13
Decl., Ex. 1, Docket No. 496-1, PLTF014154.
14
War II, “over 60,000 U.S. servicemen had been used as human
15
subjects in this chemical defense research program.”
16
Decl., Ex. 16, Docket No. 496-22, 1.
17
subjects had participated in tests conducted with high
18
concentrations of mustard agents or Lewisite in gas chambers or in
19
field exercises over contaminated ground area.”
20
subjects were used in these tests to test the effectiveness of
21
protective clothing, among other things.
22
common tests were patch, or drop, tests, in which a drop of an
23
agent was put on the arm, to “to assess the efficacy of a
24
multitude of protective or decontamination ointments, treatments
25
for mustard agent and Lewisite burns, effects of multiple
26
exposures on sensitivity, and the effects of physical exercise on
27
the severity of chemical burns.”
Id.
28
3
Gardner
By the end of World
Gardner
“At least 4,000 of these
Id.
Id. at 31.
Human
The most
1
After the conclusion of World War II, the CWS’s research
2
programs were scaled down and little research was conducted
3
between 1946 and 1950.
4
service members were experimentally treated with a wide range of
5
agents, primarily at U.S. Army Laboratories at Edgewood Arsenal,
6
Maryland.”
7
VET001_015677; see also Answer to Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 5 (admitting
8
“that the DOD used approximately 7,800 armed services personnel in
9
the experimentation program at Edgewood Arsenal”).
“From 1955 to 1975, thousands of U.S.
Patterson Decl., Ex. 3, Docket No. 491-3,
During this
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
time period, the focus of the human testing was on newer chemical
11
agents that were “perceived to pose greater threats than sulfur
12
mustard or Lewisite,” including nerve gases and psychoactive
13
drugs.
14
Answer to Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 5 (admitting that the “DOD
15
administered 250 to 400 chemical and biological agents during the
16
course of its research at Edgewood Arsenal involving human
17
subjects”).
18
entered military service as conscientious objectors and ninety
19
percent of whom were Seventh Day Adventists, were used as human
20
subjects in experiments to test biological agents at Fort Detrick
21
in Frederick, Maryland.
22
183.
23
Gardner Decl., Ex. 16, Docket No. 496-22, 46; see also
Between 1954 and 1973, about 2,300 individuals, who
Gardner Decl., Ex. 12, Docket No. 496-18,
The Department of Defense no longer tests live agents on
24
human subjects.
25
Docket No. 496-6, 45:1-46:8.
26
at Edgewood Arsenal was suspended on July 28, 1976, although
27
“protective suit tests” continued to take place between 1976 and
28
1979.
Gardner Decl., Ex. 4 (Depo. of Anthony Lee),
Human testing of chemical compounds
Gardner Decl., Ex. 7 (Decl. of Lloyd Roberts), ¶ 4.
4
1
Various memoranda and regulations were intended to govern
2
these experiments.
3
issued the Wilson Directive to the Secretaries of the Army, Navy
4
and Air Force.
5
In it, he informed them that “the policy set forth will govern the
6
use of human volunteers by the Department of Defense in
7
experimental research in the fields of atomic, biological and/or
8
chemical warfare.”
9
voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,”
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
In February 1953, the Secretary of Defense
Patterson Decl., Ex. 4, Docket No. 491-4, C-001.
Id.
The Wilson Directive stated, “The
and provided,
This means that the person involved should have legal
capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be
able to exercise free power of choice, without the
intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit,
duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of
constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient
knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the
subject matter involved as to enable him to make an
understanding and enlightened decision. This latter
element requires that before the acceptance of an
affirmative decision by the experiment subject there
should be made known to him the nature, duration, and
purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which
it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards
reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his
health or person which may possibly come from his
participation in the experiment.
20
Id. at C-001-02.
21
made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental
22
subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability,
23
or death.”
24
Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force are authorized to
25
conduct experiments in connection with the development of defense
26
of all types against atomic, biological and/or chemical warfare
27
agents involving the use of human subjects within the limits
28
prescribed above.”
It further stated, “Proper preparation should be
Id. at C-003.
Id.
The memorandum provided, “The
The Secretary of Defense warned that the
5
1
addressees “will be responsible for insuring compliance with the
2
provisions of this memorandum within their respective Services.”
3
Id.
4
A June 1953 Department of the Army memorandum, CS: 385,
5
repeated the requirements set forth in the Wilson Directive and
6
further stated, “Medical treatment and hospitalization will be
7
provided for all casualties of the experimentation as required.”
8
Patterson Decl., Ex. 5, Docket No. 491-5, VVA 024544.
These requirements were codified in Army Regulation (AR) 70-
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
25, which was promulgated on March 26, 1962 and later reissued in
11
1974.
12
Both versions set forth “[c]ertain basic principles” that “must be
13
observed to satisfy moral, ethical, and legal concepts.”
14
Decl., Ex. 47, Docket No. 496-55, 1; Gardner Decl., Ex. 48, Docket
15
no. 496-56, 1.
16
provided, “Voluntary consent is absolutely essential,” and stated,
17
The volunteer will have legal capacity to give consent,
and must give consent freely without being subjected to
any force or duress. He must have sufficient
understanding of the implications of his participation
to enable him to make an informed decision, so far as
such knowledge does not compromise the experiment. He
will be told as much of the nature, duration, and
purpose of the experiment, the method and means by which
it is to be conducted, and the inconveniences and
hazards to be expected, as will not invalidate the
results. He will be fully informed of the effects upon
his health or person which may possibly come from his
participation in the experiment.
18
19
20
21
22
23
See Gardner Decl., Exs. 47, 48, Docket Nos. 496-55, 496-56.
Gardner
Like the earlier memoranda, the regulations
24
Gardner Decl., Ex. 47, Docket No. 496-55, 1; Gardner Decl., Ex.
25
48, Docket No. 496-56, 1.
26
“Required medical treatment and hospitalization will be provided
27
for all casualties.”
28
Gardner Decl., Ex. 48, Docket No. 496-56, 2.
The regulations also mandated,
Gardner Decl., Ex. 47, Docket No. 496-55, 2;
6
1
On August 8, 1979, Army General Counsel Jill Wine-Volner
2
issued a memorandum to various high-level Army officials,
3
entitled, “Notification of Participants in Drug or
4
Chemical/Biological Agent Research.”
Patterson Decl., Ex. 6,
5
Docket No. 491-6, VET123-084994-95.
In the memorandum, Wine-
6
Vollner asked for input regarding the creation of a program to
7
“notify those individuals who were not fully informed participants
8
and may have suffered injury or be subject to a possible injury.”
9
Id. at VET123-084994.
She stated that “the legal necessity for a
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
notification program is not open to dispute” and that the Army may
11
be held to have a legal obligation to notify those who are still
12
adversely affected by their prior involvement in its testing
13
programs.
14
1979, Wine-Volner advised the Director of the Army Staff, “If
15
there is reason to believe that any participants in such research
16
programs face the risk of continuing injury, those participants
17
should be notified of their participation and the information
18
known today concerning the substance they received.”
19
Decl., Ex. 7, Docket No. 491-7, VET017-000279.
20
place “regardless of whether the individuals were fully informed
21
volunteers at the time the research was undertaken.”
22
Id.
In a subsequent memorandum issued on September 24,
Patterson
This was to take
Id.
On October 25, 1979, John R. McGiffert, Director of the Army
23
Staff, issued a memorandum to establish “Army Staff
24
responsibilities for review of past Army research involving
25
possible military applications of drug or chemical/biological
26
agents,” with the objective “to identity and notify those research
27
participants who may face the risk of continuing injury.”
28
Patterson Decl., Ex. 8, Docket No. 491-8, VET030-022686.
7
The
1
memorandum provided, “In the event that long-term hazards of a
2
substance are not known, The Surgeon General (TSG) should continue
3
to monitor research developments, and if at some future time more
4
information makes it necessary to take some action, TSG should
5
recommend appropriate action, including notification.”
6
VET030-022687.
7
this notification plan and the plan of the Surgeon General to ask
8
the National Academy of Sciences to assist in reviewing the
9
effects of the drugs and agents.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Id. at
On November 2, 1979, the Army informed Congress of
Patterson Decl., Ex. 9, Docket
No. 491-9, VET030-022692-93.
11
On December 11, 1981, the Army published in the Federal
12
Register a proposed amendment to a record keeping system.
13
Reg. 60,639.
14
11, 1982, was called the “Research and Experimental Case Files”
15
and maintained records for individuals who were “[v]olunteers
16
(military members, Federal civilian employees, state prisoners)
17
who participated in Army tests of potential chemical agents and/or
18
antidotes from the early 1950’s until the program ended in 1975.”
19
Id.
20
the Army: (1) to follow up on individuals who voluntarily
21
participated in Army chemical/biological agent research projects
22
for the purpose of assessing risks/hazards to them, and (2) for
23
retrospective medical/scientific evaluation and future scientific
24
and legal significance.”
25
46 Fed.
The proposed system, to become effective on January
The purpose of the system was for use by “the Department of
Id.
On June 30, 1986, the Army proposed the creation of a new
26
record system entitled the “Medical Research Volunteer Registry.”
27
51 Fed. Reg. 23,576.
28
military members, civilian employees, and non-DOD civilian
Included in the system were “[r]ecords of
8
1
volunteers participating in current and future research sponsored
2
by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command.”
3
Among the purposes of the system were to “assure that the U.S.
4
Army Medical Research and Development Command (USAMRDC) can
5
contact individuals who participated in research
6
conducted/sponsored by the Command in order to provide them with
7
newly acquired information, which may have an impact on their
8
health,” and to “answer inquiries concerning an individual’s
9
participation in research sponsored/conducted by USAMRDC.”
Id.
Id.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
AR 70-25 was not listed among the authorities for the maintenance
11
of the system.
12
Both record systems were amended several times during the
13
1980s.
14
which changed the name of the “Medical Research Volunteer
15
Registry” to “Research Volunteer Registry” and expanded it to
16
encompass research conducted by the U.S. Army Chemical Research,
17
Development and Engineering Center (CRDEC).
18
On May 10, 1988, the Army published a proposed change,
53 Fed. Reg. 16,575.
On August 8, 1988, the Army issued an updated version of AR
19
70-25, which became effective on September 30, 1988.2
20
Reply Decl., Ex. 87, Docket No. 513-13, 1.
21
this version added a provision stating,
22
Gardner
Among other changes,
Duty to warn. Commanders have an obligation to ensure
that research volunteers are adequately informed
concerning the risks involved with their participation
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Until Defendants filed their reply brief, the parties apparently
did not realize that there were versions of AR 70-25 released in
1988 and 1989, and instead focused their analysis on the 1990
version. The parties have represented these versions were
“substantively identical for the purposes of the issues in this
case.” Defs.’ Reply, Docket No. 513-1, 8 n.8; see also Hr’g Tr.,
Docket No. 523, 4:21-5:2.
9
in research, and to provide them with any newly acquired
information that may affect their well-being when that
information becomes available. The duty to warn exists
even after the individual volunteer has completed his or
her participation in research. To accomplish this, the
MACOM [(major Army Commands)] or agency conducting or
sponsoring research must establish a system which will
permit the identification of volunteers who have
participated in research conducted or sponsored by that
command or agency, and take actions to notify volunteers
of newly acquired information. (See a above.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Id. at 5.
Section a, which was referred to in this passage,
requires that MACOM commanders and organization heads “[p]ublish
directives and regulations for . . . [t]he procedures to assure
that the organization can accomplish its ‘duty to warn.’”
5.
Id. at
The regulation also required the Army to create and maintain a
“volunteer database” so that it would be able “to readily answer
questions concerning an individual’s participation in research”
and “to ensure that the command can exercise its ‘duty to warn.’”
Id. at 18.
It mandated, “The data base must contain items of
personal information, for example, name, social security number
(SSN), etc., which subjects it to the provisions of The Privacy
Act of 1974.”
Id.
It further provided, “Volunteers are
authorized all necessary medical care for injury or disease that
is a proximate result of their participation in research.”
4.
Id. at
The regulation also required that informed consent be given in
accordance with appendix E.
Id. at 6, 20.
Appendix E included,
among other things:
24
E-3. Description of the study
25
A statement that the study involves research. An
explanation of the purpose of the study and the expected
duration of the subject’s participation. A description
of the procedures to be followed. An identification of
any experimental procedures. A statement giving
information about prior, similar, or related studies
that provide the rationale for this study.
26
27
28
10
1
E-4. Risks
2
A description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or
discomforts to the subject.
3
E-5. Benefits
4
A description of the benefits, if any, to the subject or
to others that may reasonably be expected from the
study. If there is no benefit to the subject, it should
be so stated.
5
6
7
. . .
8
E-9. Subject’s rights
9
A statement that--
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
a. Participation is voluntary.
11
. . .
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Id. at 12.
The definition for “human subject” included, with
limited exceptions, a “living individual about whom an
investigator conducting research obtains data through interaction
with the individual, including both physical procedures and
manipulations of the subject or the subject’s environment.”
Id.
at 20.
In 1989 and 1990, AR 70-25 was again updated.
Gardner Decl.,
Ex. 49, Docket No. 496-57, i; Gardner Reply Decl., Ex. 88, Docket
No. 513-14, 1.
The 1990 version added a provision stating that
the regulation applied to “Research involving deliberate exposure
of human subjects to nuclear weapons effect, to chemical warfare
agents, or to biological warfare agents.”
Gardner Decl., Ex. 49,
Docket No. 496-57, 1.
On November 21, 1990, the name of the “Research Volunteer
Registry” was changed to the “Medical Research Volunteer
Registry.”
55 Fed. Reg. 48,671.
At that time, its system
identification number was changed to “A0070-25DASG.”
11
Id.
1
On September 24, 1991, the Army proposed changes to both the
2
“Research and Experimental Case Files” and the “Medical Research
3
Volunteer Registry” record systems.
4
48,187.
5
earlier versions.
6
56 Fed. Reg. 48,179-81,
At that time, both were kept materially the same as the
In 1991, the DOD issued regulations addressing the protection
7
of human test subjects.
56 Fed. Reg. 28,003 (codified at 32
8
C.F.R. §§ 29.101-124).
These regulations adopted some of the
9
basic principles of informed consent set forth in the Wilson
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Directive.
See 32 C.F.R. § 219.116.
On December 1, 2000, the Army proposed the deletion of the
12
“Research Volunteer Registry,” stating that its records “have been
13
incorporated” into a new system of records, the “Medical
14
Scientific Research Data Files.”
15
records system was also given the system identifier of “A0070-25
16
DASG.”
17
maintenance of that records system.
18
data system included, “To answer inquiries and provide data on
19
health issues of individuals who participated in research
20
conducted or sponsored by U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of
21
Infectious Diseases, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development
22
Command, and U.S. Army Chemical Research, Development, and
23
Engineering Center,” and to “provide individual participants with
24
newly acquired information that may impact their health.”
25
Among the categories of people whose records were included in the
26
new system were “individuals who participate in research sponsored
27
by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command and the
28
U.S. Army Chemical Research, Developments, and Engineering Center;
Id.
65 Fed. Reg. 75,249.
This new
AR 70-25 was identified among the authorities for the
12
Id.
The purposes of the new
Id.
1
and individuals at Fort Detrick who have been immunized with a
2
biological product or who fall under the Occupational Health and
3
Safety Act or Radiologic Safety Program.”
4
database “may specifically be disclosed . . . [t]o the Department
5
of Veteran Affairs to assist in making determinations relative to
6
claims for service connected disabilities; and other such
7
benefits.”
8
9
Id.
Information in the
Id.
In 2002, Congress passed section 709 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (NDAA), Pub. L. No. 107-
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
314, Div. A, Title VII, Subtitle A, § 709(c), 116 Stat. 2458 (the
11
“Bob Stump Act”), which required the Secretary of Defense to work
12
to identify projects or tests “conducted by the Department of
13
Defense that may have exposed members of the Armed Forces to
14
chemical or biological agents.”
15
The DOD has issued two memoranda releasing veterans in part
16
or in full from secrecy oaths that they may have taken in
17
conjunction with testing.
18
of Defense William Perry in March 1993, releases
19
20
21
22
23
The first, issued by former Secretary
any individuals who participated in testing, production,
transportation or storage associated with any chemical
weapons research conducted prior to 1968 from any nondisclosure restrictions or written or oral prohibitions
(e.g., oaths of secrecy) that may have been placed on
them concerning their possible exposure to any chemical
weapons agents.
Gardner Decl., Ex. 42, Docket No. 496-50, VVA 025766-67.
24
The second, issued by the Office of the Deputy Secretary of
25
Defense on January 11, 2011, after the instant litigation began,
26
does not have a date restriction and states,
27
28
In the 1990s, several reviews of military human subject
research programs from the World War II and Cold War
13
1
2
3
4
5
eras noted the common practice of research volunteers
signing “secrecy oaths” to preclude disclosure of
research information. Such oaths or other nondisclosure requirements have reportedly inhibited
veterans from discussing health concerns with their
doctors or seeking compensation from the Department of
Veterans Affairs for potential service-related
disabilities.
. . .
6
13
To assist veterans seeking care for health concerns
related to their military service, chemical or
biological agent research volunteers are hereby released
from non-disclosure restrictions, including secrecy
oaths, which may have been placed on them. This release
pertains to addressing health concerns and to seeking
benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Veterans may discuss their involvement in chemical and
biological agent research programs for these purposes.
This release does not affect the sharing of any
technical reports or operational information concerning
research results, which should appropriately remain
classified.
14
. . .
15
This memorandum, which is effective immediately, does
not affect classification or control of information,
consistent with applicable authority, relating to other
requirements pertaining to chemical or biological
weapons.
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
16
17
18
19
Gardner Decl., Ex. 53, Docket No. 496-61, VET021-000001-02.
The DVA processes service-connected death or disability
20
compensation (SCDDC) claims of class members.
21
death or disability is connected to a veteran’s participation in
22
the testing programs for the purposes of SCDDC claims, individuals
23
seeking survivor or disability benefits must establish that “it is
24
at least as likely as not that such a relationship exists.”
25
To establish that a
Plaintiffs contend that the DVA participated in some capacity
26
in some of the other Defendants’ testing programs.
27
also argue that the DVA engaged in human testing of similar
28
substances, including LSD and Thorazine.
14
Plaintiffs
1
Defendants have undertaken some efforts to contact and
2
provide notice to participants in the testing programs.
3
the DVA contacted 128 veterans who participated in World War II
4
mustard gas testing; Defendants do not provide evidence of what
5
information these individuals were provided then.
6
Ex. 15, DVA014 001257.
7
compiled by DOD and its contractor, Batelle Memorial Institute,
8
sent notice letters to certain individuals who participated in
9
some WWII and Cold War era testing programs.
In 1990,
Gardner Decl.,
In recent years, the DVA, using databases
For the first round
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
of letters related to WWII era testing, which were sent in 2005,
11
DOD identified approximately 6,400 individuals who had been
12
exposed to mustard gas or other agents during WWII and compiled a
13
database with 4,618 entries.
14
letters to approximately 319 individuals or their survivors for
15
whom DVA could find current contact information.
16
stated in part,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Starting in March 2005, the DVA sent
These letters
You may be concerned about discussing your participation
in mustard agent or Lewisite tests with VA or your
health care provider.
On March 9, 1993 the Deputy Secretary of Defense
released veterans who participated in the testing,
production, transportation or storage of chemical
weapons prior to 1968 from any non-disclosure
restriction. Servicemembers who participated in such
tests after 1968 are permitted to discuss the chemical
agents, locations, and circumstances of exposure only,
because this limited information has been declassified.
In response to the passage of the Bob Stump Act, DOD began in
2004 to search for Cold War era test information.
In addition, in
April 2005, members of Congress on the House Veterans’ Affairs
Committee requested that the DVA provide written notice to the
living veterans who participated in the test programs at Edgewood
15
1
Arsenal and Fort Detrick.
2
about Cold War era test veterans with, among other things,
3
information on the substances they were exposed to, the dose and
4
the route of administration, and where the information was
5
available.
6
participant files for each person.
7
to the DVA for use in making service-connected health care and
8
disabilities determinations.
9
providing DVA with the names of test subjects and continued to do
DOD created a database of information
The information came primarily from the test
DOD provided this information
In December 2005, the DOD began
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
so after that when new information was located.
11
time, the DOD has given the DVA the names of 16,645 Cold War era
12
test subjects.
13
database for whom it could locate current contact information,
14
which at present totals about 3,300 individuals.
15
As of the present
The DVA has sent letters to each veteran in the
Defendants did not include in the letters to Cold War era
16
test subjects the names of the chemical or biological agents to
17
which the participants were exposed or information that was
18
tailored to the individual recipient.
19
they did not do so for several reasons, including that it would
20
have taken too long, the information provided by the DOD to the
21
DVA was changing, the DVA did not want to send veterans inaccurate
22
information, alarm them or make them think they would suffer
23
adverse effects if these were unlikely.
24
25
26
27
Defendants explain that
The letters sent to the Cold War era test subjects by the DVA
stated,
You may be concerned about releasing classified test
information to your health care provider when discussing
your health concerns. To former service members who
have participated in these tests, DoD has stated:
28
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“You may provide details that affect your health to your
health care provider. For example, you may discuss what
you believe your exposure was at the time, reactions,
treatment you sought or received, and the general
location and time of the tests. On the other hand, you
should not discuss anything that relates to operational
information that might reveal chemical or biological
warfare vulnerabilities or capabilities.”
. . .
If you have questions about chemical or biological agent
tests, or concerns about releasing classified
information, contact DoD at (800) 497-6261, Monday
through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard
time.
The letter also provided information about obtaining a clinical
examination from the DVA and contacting the DVA to file a
disability claim.
If individuals called DOD’s 1-800 number
provided in the letter, they could obtain further information
about the tests and staff at the hotline would, at least
sometimes, refer them to an Army FOIA officer who had the
authority to copy and send them their own individual test files;
since requests were tracked starting in 2006, the Army has
received approximately 114 such requests.
Docket No. 496-37, 16:18-17:4.
from the DOD.
Gardner Decl., Ex. 29,
The DVA also included a fact sheet
The DVA’s expert in chemical agent exposures
recognized that this fact sheet “has some significant
inaccuracies.”
Defendants have also engaged in other types of outreach to
past test participants.
The DOD has placed some information on
its public website, including general information about the
testing conducted, the contents of the Perry memorandum and
information about how to contact the DOD’s 1-800 hotline for
additional information.
DVA’s website also contains some
substantive information about the WWII and Cold War era testing
17
1
programs.
2
veteran service organizations.
The DOD and DVA have also held briefings for some
3
LEGAL STANDARD
4
Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and
5
disputed issues of material fact remain, and when, viewing the
6
evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is
7
clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law.
8
56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);
9
Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Fed. R. Civ. P.
1987).
The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no
12
material factual dispute.
13
true the opposing party’s evidence, if supported by affidavits or
14
other evidentiary material.
15
815 F.2d at 1289.
16
in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.
17
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
18
587 (1986); Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952
19
F.2d 1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
Therefore, the court must regard as
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Eisenberg,
The court must draw all reasonable inferences
Material facts which would preclude entry of summary judgment
21
are those which, under applicable substantive law, may affect the
22
outcome of the case.
The substantive law will identify which
23
facts are material.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
24
242, 248 (1986).
25
Where the moving party does not bear the burden of proof on
26
an issue at trial, the moving party may discharge its burden of
27
production by either of two methods:
28
18
3
The moving party may produce evidence negating an
essential element of the nonmoving party’s case, or,
after suitable discovery, the moving party may show that
the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an
essential element of its claim or defense to carry its
ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.
4
Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d
5
1099, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000).
1
2
If the moving party discharges its burden by showing an
7
absence of evidence to support an essential element of a claim or
8
defense, it is not required to produce evidence showing the
9
absence of a material fact on such issues, or to support its
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
6
motion with evidence negating the non-moving party’s claim.
11
see also Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 885 (1990);
12
Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
the moving party shows an absence of evidence to support the non-
14
moving party’s case, the burden then shifts to the non-moving
15
party to produce “specific evidence, through affidavits or
16
admissible discovery material, to show that the dispute exists.”
17
Bhan, 929 F.2d at 1409.
18
Id.;
If
If the moving party discharges its burden by negating an
19
essential element of the non-moving party’s claim or defense, it
20
must produce affirmative evidence of such negation.
21
F.3d at 1105.
22
burden then shifts to the non-moving party to produce specific
23
evidence to show that a dispute of material fact exists.
24
Nissan, 210
If the moving party produces such evidence, the
Id.
If the moving party does not meet its initial burden of
25
production by either method, the non-moving party is under no
26
obligation to offer any evidence in support of its opposition.
27
Id.
28
ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.
This is true even though the non-moving party bears the
19
Id. at 1107.
1
DISCUSSION
2
Defendants assert that there is no legally enforceable duty
3
under the APA to provide notice to past test subjects.
4
argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
5
Plaintiffs’ APA claim for medical care for class members and
6
contend that there is no statutory authority for the DOD or the
7
Army to provide the care requested and no duty to do so created by
8
the various memoranda or regulations.
9
class members have no constitutional entitlement to notice or
They also
They further argue that the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
health care.
11
claims against the CIA and DOD regarding secrecy oaths.
12
they seek summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ “biased adjudicator”
13
claim against the DVA.
14
I.
15
Defendants also seek summary judgment on Plaintiffs’
Finally,
APA claims regarding notice and medical care
Title 5 U.S.C. § 702, the judicial review provision of the
16
APA, “permits a citizen suit against an agency when an individual
17
has suffered ‘a legal wrong because of agency action’ . . . .”
18
Rattlesnake Coalition v. United States EPA, 509 F.3d 1095, 1103
19
(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 702).
20
U.S.C. § 706 “prescribes standards for judicial review and
21
demarcates what relief a court may (or must) order.”
22
Neighborhood Ass’n v. United States EPA, 581 F.3d 1169, 1172 n.2
23
(9th Cir. 2009).
24
act, a court can grant relief by compelling “agency action
25
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.”
26
For § 702 claims, 5
Rosemere
When a plaintiff asserts an agency’s failure to
5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
Plaintiffs’ claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint against
27
the DOD and the Army assert that, under the APA, they are required
28
to provide class members with notice of their exposures and known
20
1
health effects, and medical care as set forth in the agencies’ own
2
policies.
3
participant regarding the substances to which he or she was
4
exposed, the doses to which he or she was exposed, the route of
5
exposure (e.g., inhalation, injection, dermal, etc.) and the known
6
or potential health effects associated with those exposures or
7
with participation in the tests.”
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By notice, Plaintiffs mean “notice to each test
Mot. at 1 n.1.
A. Claim for notice
1. Whether the regulations and memoranda have the “force of
law”
Defendants contend that the Wilson Directive, CS: 385 and AR
70-25 “lack the force of law.”
Defs.’ Corrected Reply, Docket No.
513-1, 3.
A “‘claim under § 706(1) can proceed only where a plaintiff
asserts that an agency failed to take a discrete agency action
that it is required to take.’”
Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Locke,
568 F.3d 757, 766 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Norton v. S. Utah
Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004)) (emphasis in
original).
“Discrete” actions include providing “rules, orders,
licenses, sanctions, and relief.”
Hells Canyon, 593 F.3d at 932.
A discrete action is legally required when “the agency’s legal
obligation is so clearly set forth that it could traditionally
have been enforced through a writ of mandamus.”
Norton, 542 U.S. at 63).
Id. (citing
“The limitation to required agency
action rules out judicial direction of even discrete agency action
that is not demanded by law (which includes, of course, agency
regulations that have the force of law).”
(emphasis in original).
21
Norton, 542 U.S. at 65
1
In its January 19, 2010 and May 31, 2011 orders resolving
2
Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Court recognized that “Army
3
regulations have the force of law.”
4
233, 9; see also Kern Copters, Inc. v. Allied Helicopter Serv.,
5
Inc., 277 F.2d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1960) (stating that “Army
6
regulations have the force of law”).
7
contend that “not all regulations possess the force of law” and
8
that AR 70-25 was promulgated pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §§ 3013 and
9
4503, which are “housekeeping” statutes, merely authorizing day to
Docket No. 59, 15; Docket No.
Defendants nonetheless
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
day internal operations, so this regulation cannot serve as the
11
basis for Plaintiffs’ APA claims.
12
Docket No. 495, 16-17; Defs.’ Corrected Reply, Docket No. 513-1,
13
4-5.
14
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint, Defendants
15
argued that the 1962 version of AR 70-25 was promulgated pursuant
16
to 5 U.S.C. § 301, which was a housekeeping statute, and thus
17
could not create a benefits entitlement.
18
argument, stating “there is nothing in AR 70-25 (1962) or
19
Plaintiffs’ complaint to suggest that the regulation was issued
20
pursuant to section 301.”
21
Defs.’ Opp. and Cross-Mot.,
Defendants have previously made similar arguments.
In their
The Court rejected this
Docket No. 233, 10.
In support of their new argument, Defendants rely primarily
22
on Chrysler Corporation v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), in which
23
the Supreme Court considered whether certain regulations
24
promulgated by the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal
25
Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) had the force of law.
26
that case, the Court said, “In order for a regulation to have the
27
‘force and effect of law,’ it must have certain substantive
28
characteristics and be the product of certain procedural
22
In
1
requisites.”
2
rules” that “affect[] individual rights and obligations” and
3
“interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of
4
agency organization, procedure, or practice.”
5
v. Hegstrom, 793 F.2d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that
6
substantive rules “implement existing law, imposing general,
7
extrastatutory obligations pursuant to authority properly
8
delegated by Congress,” whereas “[i]nterpretive rules clarify and
9
explain existing law or regulations” and “are issued without
Id. at 302.
It distinguished between “substantive
Id.; see also Vance
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
delegated legislative power and go more to what the administrative
11
officer thinks the statute or regulation means”) (internal
12
quotation marks and citations omitted).
13
an agency regulation is substantive, however, does not by itself
14
give it the ‘force and effect of law.’”
15
302.
16
vested in the Congress, . . . the exercise of quasi-legislative
17
authority by governmental departments and agencies must be rooted
18
in a grant of such power by Congress and subject to limitations
19
which that body imposes.”
20
that the requisite grant of legislative authority for the
21
regulations at issue in that case could be found in 5 U.S.C.
22
§ 301, which the Court labeled a “housekeeping statute.”
23
309-10.
24
to the agency to regulate its own affairs . . . authorizing what
25
the APA terms ‘rules of agency organization, procedure or
26
practice’ as opposed to ‘substantive rules.’”
27
28
The Court stated, “That
Chrysler, 441 U.S. at
Because the “legislative power of the United States is
Id.
The Court rejected the argument
Id. at
A “housekeeping statute” is “simply a grant of authority
Id.
Defendants concede that “AR 70-25 may appear to contain
substantive rules.”
Defs.’ Opp. and Cross-Mot., Docket No. 495,
23
1
16.
2
U.S.C. §§ 3013 and 4503, which they contend are housekeeping
3
statutes, AR 70-25 was not promulgated pursuant to a specific
4
statutory grant of authority sufficient to create enforceable
5
rights.
6
They argue however that, because it was issued under 10
Defendants are correct that AR 70-25 was promulgated under 10
7
U.S.C. §§ 3013 and 4503.
8
in Appendix G under section G-1, titled “Authority,”
9
The Secretary of the Army is authorized to conduct
research and development programs including the
procurement of services that are needed for these
programs (10 USC 4503). The Secretary has the authority
to “assign detail and prescribe the duties” of the
members of the Army and civilian personnel (10 USC
3013).
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
The 1988, 1989 and 1990 versions state,
11
12
13
Patterson Decl., Ex. 2, Docket No. 491-2, 13 (1990 version);
14
Gardner Reply Decl., Ex. 88, Docket No. 513-14, 17 (1989 version);
15
Gardner Reply Decl., Ex. 87, Docket No. 513-13, 17 (1988 version).
16
Appendices to the 1962 and 1974 versions, which provided “opinions
17
of The Judge Advocate General” to “furnish specific guidance for
18
all participants in research using volunteers,” made similar
19
statements.
20
version); Gardner Decl., Ex. 48, Docket No. 496-56, 4 (1974
21
version).3
22
Gardner Decl., Ex. 47, Docket No. 496-55, 4 (1962
The former § 4503, which was originally enacted in 1950 as
23
section 104 of the Army and Air Force Authorization Act of 1949,
24
64 Stat. 322, 5 U.S.C. § 235a and eventually repealed in 1993,
25
26
27
28
3
The Judge Advocate General opined that the authority for the
regulation was 10 U.S.C. §§ 3012(a) and 4503. Gardner Decl., Ex.
47, Docket No. 496-55, 4 (1962 version); Gardner Decl., Ex. 48,
Docket No. 496-56, 4 (1974 version). In 1986, Public Law 99-433
redesignated 10 U.S.C. § 3012 as 10 U.S.C. § 3013.
24
1
provided in relevant part, “The Secretary of the Army may conduct
2
and participate in research and development programs relating to
3
the Army, and may procure or contract for the use of facilities,
4
supplies, and services that are needed for those programs.”
5
U.S.C. § 4503 (1992).
6
responsibilities and authority of the Secretary of the Army,
7
including to “assign, detail, and prescribe the duties of members
8
of the Army and civilian personnel,” and to “prescribe regulations
9
to carry out his functions, powers, and duties under this title.”
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
10
Section 3013 sets forth the
10 U.S.C. § 3013(g).4
11
In their reply, Defendants represent that, in Schism v.
12
United States, 316 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the Federal Circuit
13
“expressly” found that 10 U.S.C. § 3013 cannot serve as the
14
“statutory basis authorizing DoD to provide ongoing medical care
15
for former service members because it would usurp Congress’
16
authority to control the purse strings for medical care.”
17
Reply, Docket No. 513-1, 5.
18
Defs.’
However, the Federal Circuit did not so hold in Schism.
In
19
that case, the court considered the enforceability of oral
20
promises of military recruiters, made under the direction of
21
supervisors, to new recruits that, if they served on active duty
22
for at least twenty years, they and their dependents would receive
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
A predecessor version of this statute, which was enacted as
section 101 of the Army Organization Act of 1950 and appeared at 5
U.S.C. § 181-4, provided in part that “the Secretary of the Army
may make such assignments and details of members of the Army and
civilian personnel as he thinks proper, and may prescribe the
duties of the members and civilian personnel so assigned; and such
members and civilian personnel shall be responsible for, and shall
have the authority necessary to perform, such duties as may be so
prescribed for them.”
25
1
free lifetime medical care.
2
before the court was whether the oral promises made to the
3
plaintiffs were within the authority of the Air Force Secretary
4
under 5 U.S.C. § 301.
5
to Chrysler, § 301 “merely authorize[d] housekeeping” and not “the
6
right to make promises of lifetime health care.”
7
The court also addressed the plaintiffs’ argument that “the
8
Commander-in-Chief’s inherent power in combination with 10 U.S.C.
9
§§ 3013, 5013, and 8013--which authorize the positions and
Id. at 1262.
Id. at 1263.
The principal question
The court held that, pursuant
Id. at 1279-81.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
enumerate the duties of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air
11
Force respectively--authorized the recruiters’ promises.”
12
1287-88.
13
Chief, did not have such inherent authority, because “[u]nder
14
Article I, § 8, only Congress has the power of the purse” and thus
15
such a conclusion would encroach Congress’s constitutional powers
16
to appropriate funding.
17
this reasoning to 10 U.S.C. § 3013, which was not applicable to
18
the plaintiffs in that case, who were Air Force retirees.
19
1289.
20
statute for the Secretary of the Air Force, did not authorize the
21
recruiters’ promises because the versions relevant to the
22
plaintiffs there did not include “‘recruiting’ in the enumerated
23
powers” and, even if they did, “the Secretary’s authority to
24
conduct recruiting does not carry with it the broad authority to
25
make promises that bind future Congresses to appropriate funding
26
for free lifetime care.”
27
28
Id. at
The court found that the President, as Commander-in-
Id. at 1288.
The court did not apply
Id. at
The court found that 10 U.S.C. § 8013, the corresponding
Id.
This case is distinguishable from Schism.
Here, at the time
that AR 70-25 was promulgated, there was a statutory provision, 10
26
1
U.S.C. § 4503, that expressly authorized the Secretary of the Army
2
to conduct research and development and to “procure or contract
3
for the use of facilities, supplies, and services that are needed
4
for those programs.”
5
gave the Secretary the power to prescribe regulations to carry out
6
his functions, powers and duties under that title, including
7
§ 4503.
8
authority to contract for services needed to carry out research
9
and to implement regulations to do so.
10 U.S.C. § 4503.
Title 10 U.S.C. § 3013(g)
Thus, Congress delegated to the Secretary of the Army the
There is no reason that
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
this would exclude adopting a regulation promising to provide
11
volunteers with medical treatment associated with injuries or
12
illnesses that result from participation in testing.
13
because AR 70-25 is a substantive rule and was promulgated under
14
10 U.S.C. §§ 3013 and 4503, statutory grants of authority
15
sufficient to create enforceable rights, it created duties that
16
are enforceable against the Army under the APA.
17
Therefore,
The parties also dispute whether the Wilson Directive and CS:
18
385 can create duties that are enforceable under § 706(1) of the
19
APA.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Ninth Circuit has created
a two-part test for determining when agency
pronouncements have the force and effect of law:
“To have the force and effect of law, enforceable
against an agency in federal court, the agency
pronouncement must (1) prescribe substantive rules--not
interpretive rules, general statements of policy or
rules of agency organization, procedure or practice--and
(2) conform to certain procedural requirements. To
satisfy the first requirement the rule must be
legislative in nature, affecting individual rights and
obligations; to satisfy the second, it must have been
promulgated pursuant to a specific statutory grant of
authority and in conformance with the procedural
requirements imposed by Congress.”
28
27
1
River Runners for Wilderness v. Martin, 593 F.3d 1064, 1071 (9th
2
Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Fifty-Three (53) Eclectus
3
Parrots, 685 F.2d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 1982)); see also Rank v.
4
Nimmo, 677 F.2d 692, 698 (9th Cir. 1982) (same).
5
Defendants argue that these documents do not meet either of
6
the requirements described in River Runners.
7
that there is nothing in these documents that sets forth
8
substantive rules that demonstrate a binding obligation and that
9
they were instead general statements of agency policy and
First, they contend
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
procedure.
11
response, Plaintiffs point to the language in the memoranda that
12
they say “is indicative of a binding commitment (setting forth
13
what the agency ‘will’ or ‘shall’ do).”
14
Docket No. 502, 2-3.
15
Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004).
16
that, in Norton, the Supreme Court suggested that even an agency’s
17
“plan,” which is less formal than regulations, may “itself
18
create[] a commitment binding on the agency,” at least where there
19
is a “clear indication of binding commitment in the terms of the
20
plan.”
21
Court found that the statement in the plan that the agency “‘will’
22
take this, that, or the other action” was insufficient to create a
23
binding commitment, absent other supporting evidence.
24
Defs.’ Opp. and Cross-Mot., Docket No. 495, 14-16.
Id. at 69-70.
In
Pls.’ Reply and Opp.,
Both parties rely on Norton v. Southern Utah
Plaintiffs point out
Defendants respond that, in Norton, the
As Plaintiffs point out, there is clear language in both
25
memoranda that demonstrates that their dictates were intended to
26
be mandatory.
27
stated that the participation of human volunteers in testing
28
“shall be subject” to the conditions that he set forth in the
In the Wilson Directive, the Secretary of Defense
28
1
memorandum, and authorized the Secretaries of the Army, Navy and
2
Air Force to conduct experiments using such subject only “within
3
the limits” that he had prescribed.
4
Docket No. 491-4, C-001-3.
5
the Army, Navy and Air Force that they would be required to
6
“insur[e] compliance” with these dictates within their agencies.
7
Id. at C-003.
8
“must be observed” and described obtaining of informed consent as
9
a “duty and responsibility.”
Patterson Decl., Ex. 4,
He also informed the Secretaries of
CS: 385 similarly stated that these requirements
Patterson Decl., Ex. 5, Docket No.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
491-5, VVA 024538.
11
policies and the conditions for the use of human subjects
12
contained therein were not waivable and could not be modified on a
13
case-by-case basis.
14
Further, the policies did not simply govern internal procedures.
15
Instead, they proscribed obligations on the part of Defendants
16
toward individuals whom they used to test chemical and biological
17
agents.
18
Chrysler, 441 U.S. at 302.
19
Unlike in River Runners, the dictates of these
Cf. River Runners, 593 F.3d at 1071-72.
As such, they manifestly “affect[] individual rights.”
Second, Defendants argue that these memoranda were not
20
promulgated pursuant to any specific grant of authority from
21
Congress.
22
that the Wilson Memorandum lacks the force of law because ‘[t]here
23
simply is no nexus between the [Wilson Memorandum] and a
24
corresponding delegation of legislative authority by the United
25
States Congress.”
26
re Cincinnati Radiation Litig., 874 F. Supp. 796, 827 (S.D. Ohio
27
1995)) (brackets in original).
28
cited two bases for the authority of the Wilson Directive: the
They state that “at least one court has expressly held
Defs.’ Reply, Docket No. 513-1, 4 (quoting In
In Cincinnati, the plaintiffs
29
1
inherent authority of the President; and 5 U.S.C. § 301.
2
Supp. at 826-27.
3
rejected the proffered arguments and found no nexus with a grant
4
of authority from Congress.
5
At the hearing on this motion, Defendants argued that, because
6
Plaintiffs had characterized CS: 385 as “a continuation” of the
7
Wilson Directive, it should fail on the same basis.
8
523, 34:25-35:4.
9
874 F.
The court, citing Chrysler, 441 U.S. at 304,
Cincinnati, 874 F. Supp. at 826-27.
Docket No.
Plaintiffs have not cited any statutory grant of power from
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Congress to the Secretary of Defense under which he promulgated
11
the Wilson Directive and none is apparent from the face of the
12
document itself.
13
show that the Wilson Directive has the procedural requisites to
14
have the force and effect of law.
15
Accordingly, they have not met their burden to
In contrast, CS: 385 clearly identifies its statutory
16
authorization on its face.
17
70-25, CS: 385 contains an opinion from the Judge Advocate General
18
pointing to 5 U.S.C. §§ 235a and 181-4, the predecessors to 10
19
U.S.C. §§ 3013(g) and 4503, as granting the Secretary of the Army
20
the authority to conduct research and to make such assignments to
21
Army and civilian personnel as he deems proper.
22
Ex. 5, Docket No. 491-5, VVA 024540.
23
shown that the requirements in River Runners are satisfied as to
24
CS: 385 and therefore it, as well as AR 70-25, can be enforced
25
through the APA.
26
27
28
Like the 1962 and 1974 versions of AR
Patterson Decl.,
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have
2. Content and nature of the duty to notify
Defendants contend that, even if they were binding, the
Wilson Directive, CS: 385 and all versions of AR 70-25 do not
30
1
compel them to issue the particular form of “notice” that
2
Plaintiffs seek.
3
regulations do not mandate disclosure of the particular pieces of
4
information that Plaintiffs identify.
5
such legal obligation is set forth clearly enough to be legally
6
binding upon them.
7
warn created by the most recent iterations of AR 70-25 is not owed
8
to class members who participated in experiments before these
9
versions were issued.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
They point out that the memoranda and
Thus, they argue that no
They also contend that any ongoing duty to
Each document, the Wilson Directive, CS: 385 and all versions
11
of AR 70-25, contains similar language providing that informed
12
consent must be obtained from test subjects and that such consent
13
includes being told the “nature, duration, and purpose” of the
14
testing, “the method and means by which it is to be conducted,”
15
“all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected,” and
16
the effects upon health or person which may possibly come from
17
participation.
18
appear in the most recent versions of AR 70-25, it does appear in
19
Appendix E thereof.
20
513-13, 15; see also id. at 20 (setting forth definition of
21
informed consent, which “includes, when appropriate, those
22
elements listed in appendix E of this regulation”).
23
are correct that the wording of the regulations does not support
24
the exact definition of “notice” that Plaintiffs have put forth
25
here.
26
support the duty to provide some notice, specifically that listed
27
in the first sentence of this paragraph.
Although Defendants suggest that this does not
See Gardner Reply Decl., Ex. 87, Docket No.
Defendants
However, this does not mean that the regulations do not
28
31
1
The parties dispute whether Defendants have a “continuing
2
duty to provide updated information as it is acquired.”
3
Defendants argue that the regulations, except the most recent
4
versions of AR 70-25, address only the notice that researchers
5
were required to provide to subjects in order to provide informed
6
consent before participating in a test and do not create any
7
ongoing obligation to provide notice to test subjects after
8
testing was completed.
9
these documents are written does support that they are directed at
As Defendants contend, the manner in which
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the provision of informed consent prior to participation in the
11
experiments.
12
(“The 1962 version of AR 70-25 mandated the disclosure of
13
information so that volunteers could make informed decisions.”).
14
Further, Plaintiffs do not point to anything in the regulations
15
issued prior to 1988 that compels a contrary conclusion.
16
See First Order on Mot. to Dismiss, Docket No. 59
The most recent versions of AR 70-25 from 1988 through 1990
17
do contain a duty to warn that is manifestly and unambiguously
18
forward-looking in nature.
19
70-25 in the order on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification,
20
the Court observed that, “by its terms, the section in the 1990
21
regulation regarding the duty to warn contemplates an ongoing duty
22
to volunteers who have already completed their participation in
23
research.”
24
Gardner Reply Decl., Ex. 87, Docket No. 513 13, 5 (1988 version of
25
AR 70-25, with the provision regarding the “duty to warn,” which
26
exists “even after the individual volunteer has completed his or
27
her participation in the research”).
In discussing the 1990 version of AR
Class Cert. Order, Docket No. 485, 40; see also
28
32
1
It is less clear whether this ongoing duty is owed to
individuals who participated in experiments before 1988 or whether
3
it is limited to only those who might have done so after AR 70-25
4
was revised in 1988.
5
and addresses the creation of a system that will allow the
6
“identification of volunteers who have participated in research”
7
so that they can be notified of newly acquired information, it
8
does not make clear whether it contemplates that the system would
9
include the volunteers who participated before it was created or
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
2
if it would include only those who volunteered for research after
11
it was created, to allow them to be provided with additional
12
information in the future, after they had completed their
13
participation.
14
the Court previously noted, there is nothing in these documents
15
that “limits these forward-looking provisions to those people who
16
became test volunteers after the regulation was created.”
17
Cert. Order, Docket No. 485, 39-40.
18
nothing that clearly requires that these provisions apply to those
19
who became test volunteers before they were created.
20
as the Court also previously observed, “the definition for human
21
subject or experimental subject” contained in the 1988, 1989 and
22
1990 versions included, with limited exceptions, “a living
23
individual about whom an investigator conducting research obtains
24
data through interaction with the individual, including both
25
physical procedures and manipulations of the subject or the
26
subject’s environment,” and did not explicitly “exclude
27
individuals who were subjected to testing prior to the date of the
Although the provision uses the past tense
Gardner Decl., Ex. 49, Docket No. 496-57, 5.
28
33
As
Class
However, there is also
Although,
1
regulations,” id.
2
include these individuals.
3
at 40, this definition also did not clearly
Defendants argue that, in the face of ambiguous regulations,
4
the Court must defer to their reasonable interpretation of their
5
own regulations.
6
Defense and the Army testified that “this change in AR 70-25 has
7
an effective date of 1990, and it was not meant to retroactively
8
go back for all Army research conducted prior to that date
9
primarily because the system to effect duty to warn would have to
The Rule 30(b)(6) witness for the Department of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
be done at the time of research being conducted.”
11
Ex. 2, Docket No. 496-4, 151:6-11.5
12
order “[t]o be able to effect a duty to warn at the time a
13
research program is established,” the MACOM commander is required
14
“to establish a system to do that, to develop the roster and the
15
location of those individuals.”
16
testified that this “has to be part of the informed consent
17
process at the beginning of any research study” and “I do not see
18
how you can retrofit this requirement in completed studies.”
19
at 143:1-14.
20
don’t see how it’s possible for anyone to effect a duty to warn
21
for events that happened when such a system was not established.
22
In other words, prior to 1990.”
23
Gardner Decl.,
He also testified that, in
Id. at 139:19-140:1.
He further
Id.
He opined, “If there is no such system in place, I
Id. at 140: 8-12.
Generally, “agencies’ interpretations of their own
24
regulations are entitled to deference, even when their
25
interpretation of statutes is not.”
Price v. Stevedoring Servs.
26
27
28
5
As previously noted, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants were
aware of the 1988 and 1989 versions of AR 70-25 until Defendants
filed the final brief on the instant cross-motions.
34
1
of Am., 697 F.3d 820, 828 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Christopher v.
2
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 132 S. Ct. 2156, 2166 (2012) (noting
3
that, under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), deference is
4
“ordinarily” given to “an agency’s interpretation of its own
5
ambiguous regulation”).
6
apply in all cases.”
7
is undoubtedly inappropriate, for example, when the agency’s
8
interpretation is ‘plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the
9
regulation,’” or “when there is reason to suspect that the
However, “this general rule does not
Christopher, 132 S. Ct. at 2166.
“Deference
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
agency’s interpretation ‘does not reflect the agency’s fair and
11
considered judgment on the matter in question.’”
12
omitted).
13
conflicts with a prior interpretation, . . . or when it appears
14
that the interpretation is nothing more than a convenient
15
litigating position, . . . or a post hoc rationalization advanced
16
by an agency seeking to defend past agency action against attack.”
17
Id. (internal quotation marks, citations and formatting omitted).
Id. (citations
“This might occur when the agency’s interpretation
18
Where a court declines to give an interpretation Auer
19
deference, it accords the agency’s “interpretation a measure of
20
deference proportional to the ‘thoroughness evident in its
21
consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with
22
earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give
23
it power to persuade.’”
24
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 228 (2001)).
25
amount of consideration will “vary with circumstances” and may be
26
“near indifference,” such as has been given in some cases when
27
considering an “interpretation advanced for the first time in a
Christopher, 132 S. Ct. at 2169 (quoting
28
35
This
1
litigation brief.”
2
at 212-13).
3
Mead, 533 U.S. at 228 (citing Bowen, 488 U.S.
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should not credit Defendants’
4
explanation and testimony because it is a “post-hoc
5
rationalization” and a “litigation argument.”
6
Opp. to Defs.’ Cross-Mot., Docket No. 502, 16.
7
that the reason they have advanced this explanation for the first
8
time here is that no one has attempted previously to interpret the
9
regulation in the way that Plaintiffs do.
Pls.’ Reply and
Defendants respond
Defendants also argue
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
that the creation of the separate Medical Research Volunteer
11
Registry and Research and Experimental Case Files systems supports
12
their interpretation.
13
Defendants’ arguments are not persuasive.
As to their first
14
point, that they have not previously interpreted the regulation
15
does not mean that whatever interpretation they put forward now
16
must be adopted.
17
prior interpretation against which their current understanding can
18
be compared to determine whether they have maintained a consistent
19
position or not.
20
that Defendants’ current interpretation of AR 70-25 does not
21
reflect the Army’s fair and considered judgment on the matter.
22
According to their own briefs and admissions, they have developed
23
this interpretation only in the context of this litigation.
24
Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 213 (1988)
25
(“Deference to what appears to be nothing more than an agency’s
26
convenient litigating position would be entirely inappropriate.”);
27
see also Fed. Labor Relations Auth. v. United States Dep’t of
28
Treasury, 884 F.2d 1446, 1455 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (explaining reasons
Instead, this simply means that there is no
Further, there is substantial reason to suspect
36
See
1
for reluctance to defer to agency counsel’s litigating positions,
2
including that “a position established only in litigation may have
3
been developed hastily, or under special pressure, or without an
4
adequate opportunity for presentation of conflicting views”).
5
They did so in a context that suggests that they were under
6
special pressure to take this position to further the defense of
7
this action.
8
position was developed quickly and without a careful consideration
9
of AR 70-25 (1988) and the context in which it was issued and
Further, the record also suggests that Defendants’
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
developed.
11
interpretation Defendants rely was mistaken about the date on
12
which the operative parts of the regulation were amended,
13
suggesting that he did not have a clear understanding of the
14
context in which these changes were made.
15
Notably, the agency representative upon whose
Further, the explanation put forward by the DOD and Army’s
16
Rule 30(b)(6) witness is simply not accurate.
17
commander must develop the database containing the test subjects
18
information at the beginning of the research study in order to
19
have the necessary information to carry out the duty to notify in
20
the future, if new information is uncovered later about the
21
possible effects of a test.
22
make such a database at the outset, it is also possible to create
23
one after the fact, using whatever information is available, as
24
the DOD in fact attempted to do when it created the database for
25
the DVA’s notice letters.
26
He reasons that the
However, although it may be easier to
Finally, Defendants’ argument regarding the file systems is
27
flawed.
28
Research Volunteer Registry supports that their proffered view is
Their explanation of the development of the Medical
37
1
a post-hoc rationalization of the development of AR 70-25 and its
2
meaning.
3
the Medical Research Volunteer Registry required by AR 70-25
4
(1990) to contain information about volunteers participating only
5
in current or future research, not tests completed decades ago.”
6
Defs.’ Opp. and Cross-Mot., Docket No. 495, 21.
7
that, in contrast, “in a separate notice published the same day,
8
the Army described” the Research and Experimental Case Files
9
database as including the past volunteers; Defendants suggest that
Defendants contend that “the Army intentionally created
They also argue
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
this separate database was not created pursuant to AR 70-25.
11
at 20-21; Defs.’ Reply, Docket No. 513-1, 8-9.
12
Medical Research Volunteer Registry predated even the 1988
13
revision to AR 70-25 and thus was not created solely to fulfill
14
the requirement of that regulation.
15
as among the authorities for that Registry until it was replaced
16
in 2000 by the Medical Scientific Research Data Files system.
17
description for the new database created in 2000 removed the
18
language that referred to “current and future research” that had
19
appeared in the description for the Medical Research Volunteer
20
Registry.
21
some stated purposes of the new Medical Scientific Research Data
22
Files system created in 2000 included “[t]o answer inquiries and
23
provide data on health issues of individuals who participated in
24
research conducted or sponsored by” the Army and to “provide
25
individual participants with newly acquired information that may
26
impact their health.”
27
in the Medical Scientific Research Data Files to those who would
28
be test subjects in the future; instead, the use of the past tense
Id.
However, the
AR 70-25 also was not cited
Compare 58 F.R. 10,002, with 65 F.R. 75,250.
The
Further,
This language does not limit those included
38
1
suggests that it could encompass individuals who participated in
2
research in the past.
3
mandates that only one record system be created.
4
of the Research and Experimental Case Files database was “to
5
follow up on individuals who voluntarily participated in Army
6
chemical/biological agent research projects for the purpose of
7
assessing risks/hazards to them,” which is consistent with an
8
ongoing duty to notify them of such risks and hazards.
9
In addition, nothing about AR 70-25
A stated purpose
Accordingly, under the circumstances described above, the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Court finds that deference to Defendants’ position on this issue
11
is not warranted.
12
Having considered the plain language of AR 70-25, the Court
13
concludes that Plaintiffs’ argument--that the duty to warn is
14
properly interpreted as applying on an on-going basis, not just as
15
part of the pre-experiment consent process, and is owed to service
16
members who became test subjects before 1988--is more persuasive.
17
This is consistent with the text itself, including the statement
18
that this duty is owed to individuals who have “participated” in
19
research, not just to those who will participate in such research.
20
This is also supported by the addition to the 1990 version of AR
21
70-25, which made clear that the regulation applied to research
22
involving “deliberate exposure of human subjects to nuclear
23
weapons effect, to chemical warfare agents, or to biological
24
warfare agents.”
25
does not “still conduct human experimentation with chemical and
26
biological warfare agents” and that its research programs
27
“involving human subjects do not involve the exposure of these
28
subjects to chemical or biological warfare agents” any longer.
The DOD, including the Army, represents that it
39
1
Gardner Reply Decl., Ex. 86, Docket No. 513-12, 2; see also Defs.’
2
Opp. and Cross-Mot., Docket No. 495, 2 (representing that the
3
“Army suspended testing of chemical compounds on human volunteers
4
on July 28, 1976” and that the program involving testing of
5
biological agents on humans ended in 1973).
6
not--and does not--engage in such ongoing testing, there would
7
have been no reason to add this language to AR 70-25 in 1990 if
8
the regulation did not encompass those who had already become such
9
test subjects.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Because the Army did
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendants’ duty to
11
warn test subjects of possible health effects is not limited to
12
the time that these individuals provide consent to participate in
13
the experiments.
14
about newly acquired information that may affect the well-being of
15
test subjects after they completed their participation in
16
research.
17
test subjects prior to the time that the 1988 revision was issued.
18
19
Instead, Defendants have an ongoing duty to warn
This ongoing duty is owed to individuals who became
3. Sufficiency of action versus failure to act
Defendants contend, because “it is undisputed that DoD has
20
engaged in substantial outreach efforts to test participants over
21
the years,” both alone and in collaboration with the DVA, it is
22
“clear that Plaintiffs’ true complaint is with the sufficiency of
23
action DoD has already taken,” which is not cognizable under
24
§ 706(1) of the APA.
25
12; Defs.’ Reply, Docket No. 513-1, 2.
Defs.’ Opp. and Cross-Mot., Docket No. 495,
26
Plaintiffs respond that the Court should not “reverse its
27
ruling that Plaintiffs have stated a cognizable notice claim under
28
APA section 706(1).”
Id. at 16 (citing Order on First Mot. to
40
Dismiss, Docket No. 59, 14-16).
2
no dispute that the outreach actions were not taken “pursuant to
3
the applicable regulations,” citing testimony by Defendants’
4
witnesses that the outreach efforts were not conducted in order to
5
comply with AR 70-25.
6
No. 502, 15 n.13.
7
showing that DVA’s efforts can be substituted for those of the
8
Army or DOD, which have their own duty to provide notice.
9
Finally, Plaintiffs contend that they are challenging Defendants’
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
failure to act and not the sufficiency of their outreach efforts.
11
They also contend that there is
Pls.’ Reply and Opp. to Defs.’ Mot., Docket
They further argue that Defendants have made no
Although the Court found when ruling on a motion to dismiss
12
that Plaintiffs stated a cognizable claim, Defendants have now
13
made a summary judgment motion on this issue and Plaintiffs must
14
raise a material dispute of fact in support of their claim, not
15
merely state a cognizable claim.
16
Plaintiffs, the Court did not address the challenge raised by
17
Defendants here.
18
did not identify AR 70-25 as the legal impetus for past outreach
19
efforts is unavailing.
20
taken all of the outreach steps that Plaintiffs maintain that they
21
should have, they could nonetheless be found to have failed to act
22
and be compelled to make redundant efforts.
23
Further, in the order cited by
Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants themselves
Under this logic, even if Defendants had
Plaintiffs are correct that the notice letters were sent by
24
the DVA to veterans for whom addresses could be located, not by
25
the DOD or the Army.
26
for class certification, the DOD and the Army acknowledged that
27
the letters were from the DVA and that they could advise the DVA
28
on the content but could not require the DVA to make particular
As the Court noted in resolving the motion
41
1
changes to them.
2
Court concluded that, as a result, the class representatives’
3
receipt of these letters did not undermine their standing to
4
challenge the DOD’s and the Army’s failure to notify.
5
The Court found that this did not make certification under Rule
6
23(b)(2) inappropriate.
7
ruled on the current issue, whether Plaintiffs’ challenge is to
8
the sufficiency of agency action rather than to a lack of agency
9
action.
Class Cert. Order, Docket No. 485, 23, 51.
Id. at 51.
The
Id. at 23.
However, the Court has not
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
The APA limits judicial review to “[a]gency action made
11
reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is
12
no other adequate remedy in a court.”
13
action to be “final” under the APA, it “must mark the consummation
14
of an agency’s decision-making process” and “must be one by which
15
rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal
16
conclusions will flow.”
17
(1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
18
of an agency’s failure to act may be considered an exception to
19
the final agency action requirement.
20
(allowing a reviewing court to “compel agency action unlawfully
21
withheld or unreasonably delayed”).
22
maintained “only where there has been a genuine failure to act.”
23
Ecology Ctr., Inc. v. United States Forest Serv., 192 F.3d 922,
24
926 (9th Cir. 1999).
25
plaintiffs to evade the finality requirement with complaints about
26
the sufficiency of an agency action ‘dressed up as an agency’s
27
failure to act.’”
28
714 n.11 (9th Cir. 1991)).
5 U.S.C. § 704.
For an
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177
Review
See 5 U.S.C. § 706(1)
A claim under § 706(1) can be
The Ninth Circuit “has refused to allow
Id. (quoting Nevada v. Watkins, 939 F.2d 710,
42
1
Here, Plaintiffs challenge the decision of the DOD and Army
2
to have the DVA send the notice letters to former servicemen with
3
information about their testing, in addition to arguing that the
4
notice letters themselves were insufficient for a variety of
5
reasons.
6
the preparation of the DVA’s letters and accompanying information,
7
although they did not have final say over the content of the
8
letters.
9
out their duty, not whether they did so at all.
It is undisputed that the DOD and Army participated in
Thus, the challenge here is to how Defendants carried
Accordingly, to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the extent that Plaintiffs seek to require the DOD and Army to
11
provide notice to each class member which discloses on an
12
individual basis the substances to which he or she was exposed,
13
the doses to which he or she was exposed, the route of exposure
14
and the known effects of the testing, this claim is not brought
15
properly under § 706(1).
16
However, Plaintiffs also challenge the refusal of the Army to
17
carry out its ongoing duty to warn, that is, after the original
18
notice, and in the future, to provide test subjects with
19
information that is learned subsequently that may affect their
20
well-being.
21
not doing this on an ongoing basis.
22
their claim, here Plaintiffs do not challenge the sufficiency of
23
agency action and properly attack the Army’s failure to act.
24
Defendants have not provided evidence that they have sent any
25
updated information to test subjects since the DVA sent the notice
26
letters and do not acknowledge any intent or duty to do so.
There is no material dispute of fact that the Army is
27
28
43
Unlike the other aspects of
1
2
4. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants in part
3
both Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and Defendants’
4
cross-motion in part and denies them in part.
5
dismissed the claim based on the Wilson Directive and found no
6
basis for enforcing CS: 385 and AR 90-75 against the DOD, the
7
Court grants judgment in favor of the DOD on this claim in its
8
entirety.
9
Army to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to challenge its original
Because the Court
The Court also grants summary judgment in favor of the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
notice efforts.
11
of Plaintiffs that the Army has an ongoing duty to warn and orders
12
the Army, through the DVA or otherwise, to provide test subjects
13
with newly acquired information that may affect their well-being
14
that it has learned since its original notification, now and in
15
the future as it becomes available.
16
B. Claim for medical care
17
18
However, the Court summarily adjudicates in favor
1. Monetary damages
Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment
19
on Plaintiffs’ claim for medical care because it is in fact a
20
claim for money damages, not for equitable relief, and thus the
21
APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity is inapplicable.
22
acknowledge that the Court considered this argument previously and
23
rejected it, but argue that the prior decision should be
24
reconsidered.
25
contend held that “claims similar to the medical care claim
26
against DOD are essentially claims for money damages and therefore
27
not cognizable under the APA.”
28
28-29 (citing Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259, 1273 (Fed.
Defendants
They rely on two out-of-circuit cases which they
See Defs.’ Opp. and Cross-Mot. at
44
1
Cir. 2002); Jaffee v. United States, 592 F.2d 712, 715 (3d Cir.
2
1979)).
3
related to their second motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motion
4
for class certification and cited the same cases therein.
Defendants raised the same argument in the briefing
As noted above, in Schism, the Federal Circuit held that
6
compensation of members of the military, including claims for
7
benefits that were compensation for services rendered, was
8
governed by statute and not contract.
9
the plaintiffs were seeking comprehensive free lifetime health
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
5
care coverage premised on an implied-in-fact contract based on
11
oral promises for such coverage made at the time that they were
12
recruited.
13
medical care is merely a form of pension, a benefit received as
14
deferred compensation upon retirement in lieu of additional cash,”
15
and thus there was “no meaningful difference between the
16
retirement benefits that the Supreme Court has identified as
17
beyond the reach of contracts and the full free medical care at
18
issue” in that case.
19
concluded that there were no valid contracts.
20
present case, however, is not about a benefit as a form of
21
deferred compensation for past military service.
22
about whether the government has a duty to pay for medical care to
23
address ongoing suffering caused by military testing.
24
316 F.3d at 1273.
There,
The Federal Circuit stated that “full free lifetime
Id. at 1273.
On that basis, the court
Id. at 1274.
The
Instead, it is
Defendants also renew their argument that this case is
25
“strikingly similar” to the claim brought in Jaffee.
26
case, the plaintiff alleged that, while he was serving in the Army
27
in 1953, he was ordered to stand in a field near the site of an
28
explosion of a nuclear device, without any protection against the
45
In that
1
radiation, and without his knowledge of or consent to the risks.
2
Jaffee, 592 F.2d at 714.
3
class of all soldiers who were ordered to be present at the
4
explosion, he sought an order requiring the United States to warn
5
class members of the medical risks that they faced and to provide
6
or subsidize medical care for them.
7
that “the request for prompt medical examinations and all medical
8
care and necessary treatment, in fact, is a claim for money
9
damages.”
Id. at 715.
On behalf of himself and a putative
Id.
The Third Circuit found
It noted that the plaintiff “requests a
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
traditional form of damages in tort compensation for medical
11
expenses to be incurred in the future.”
12
complaint seeks an injunction ordering either the provision of
13
medical services by the Government or payment for the medical
14
services,” and that thus “payment of money would fully satisfy
15
Jaffee’s ‘equitable’ claim for medical care.”
16
found that the payment of money could not satisfy the claim
17
regarding warning of medical risks.
18
States v. Price, 688 F.2d 204 (3d Cir. 1982), the Third Circuit
19
found appropriate the funding of a diagnostic study to assess the
20
public health threat posed by contamination and abatement because,
21
“though it would require monetary payments,” it “would be
22
preventative rather than compensatory” and was intended as “the
23
first step in the remedial process of abating an existing but
24
growing toxic hazard which, if left unchecked, will result in even
25
graver future injury.”
26
subsequently explained the principle derived from Jaffee and Price
27
to be “that an important factor in identifying a proceeding as one
28
to enforce a money judgment is whether the remedy would compensate
Id. at 212.
46
Id.
Id.
It stated that “his
Id.
The court also
In another case, United
The Third Circuit
1
for past wrongful acts resulting in injuries already suffered, or
2
protect against potential future harm.”
3
of Environmental Resources, 733 F.2d 267, 276-277 (3d Cir. 1984).
4
Here, Plaintiffs have not conceded, as the plaintiff in Jaffe did,
5
that their claim for medical care could be fully remedied by money
6
damages, and Defendants have not shown that it could be.
7
they seek to end purported ongoing rights violations and harm, not
8
compensation for harms that took place completely in the past.
9
Future medical treatment for ills suffered as a result of
Penn Terra, Ltd. v. Dep’t
Further,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
participation in human experimentation can be seen as preventing
11
future potential harm and suffering.
12
13
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment on this basis.
14
2. DVA medical care as an adequate alternate remedy
15
Under the APA, “only ‘agency action made reviewable by
16
statute and final agency action for which there is no other
17
adequate remedy in a court’ are subject to judicial review.”
18
Tucson Airport Auth. v. General Dynamics Corp., 136 F.3d 641, 645
19
(9th Cir. 1998) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 704).
20
The DVA, through its Veterans Health Administration, is
21
charged with providing “a complete medical and hospital service
22
for the medical care and treatment of veterans.”
23
§ 7301(b).
24
and medical services “to any veteran for a service-connected
25
disability.”
26
service-connected disability will receive VA care provided for in
38 U.S.C.
Congress has mandated that it provide hospital care
38 U.S.C. § 1710.6
Thus, a “veteran who has a
27
6
28
“Disability” is defined as “a disease, injury, or other physical
or mental defect.” 38 U.S.C. § 1701(1).
47
1
the ‘medical benefits package’ . . . for that service-connected
2
disability,” even if that veteran is “not enrolled in the VA
3
healthcare system.”
4
for service-connected disabilities, veterans are not subject to
5
any copayment or income eligibility requirements.
6
§§ 17.108(d)(1),(e)(1), 17.111(f)(1),(3).
7
38 C.F.R. § 17.37(b).
When receiving care
38 C.F.R.
If a veteran disagrees with a decision made by the DVA about
8
benefits or service-connection, the veteran may appeal the
9
decision to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.
38 U.S.C. § 7105.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Thereafter, decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals can be
11
appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
12
§ 7252.
38 U.S.C.
13
Defendants argue that there is no waiver of sovereign
14
immunity under the APA for the health care claim against the DOD
15
and the Army because there is an adequate remedy for Plaintiffs
16
through the DVA’s health care system and the statutory scheme for
17
review of denial of claims made therein.
18
Mot., Docket No. 495, 31-32.
19
will not be able to establish that they lack an adequate remedy
20
for their health care claims elsewhere.
Defs.’ Opp. and Cross-
They also assert that Plaintiffs
Id. at 32.
21
Plaintiffs respond that DVA medical care does not adequately
22
redress their claim because “the DVA system is powerless to grant
23
the equitable relief Plaintiffs seek.”
24
Docket No. 502, 25.
25
declaration that the DOD and the Army have a duty to provide them
26
with medical care and an injunction requiring these agencies to
27
provide examinations, medical care and treatment and to establish
28
policies and procedures governing these.
Pls.’ Reply and Opp.,
In the instant case, Plaintiffs seek a
48
1
Defendants reply that Plaintiffs’ “alleged injuries can be
2
redressed through” another available and adequate remedy, even if
3
that remedy is not the precise one that they demand.
4
Reply, Docket No. 513-1, 13.
5
Defs.’
Plaintiffs have not provided evidence of a material dispute
of fact that they do not have an adequate remedy to redress their
7
injuries through the DVA health care system.
8
of Veterans’ Appeals and Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
9
cannot direct the DOD and the Army to provide medical care to
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
6
Plaintiffs, they can provide a remedy to redress the injuries
11
complained of here, by requiring that the DVA provide medical care
12
to Plaintiffs for their service-connected injuries.
13
Sullivan, 902 F.2d 84, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (noting that federal
14
courts have “interpreted the APA to bar suits where a plaintiff’s
15
injury may be remedied in another action, even if that remedy
16
would have no effect upon the challenged agency action”) (internal
17
quotation marks omitted).
18
Although the Board
See Coker v.
The cases cited by Plaintiffs, Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487
19
U.S. 879 (1988), and Tucson Airport Auth. v. General Dynamics
20
Corp., 136 F.3d 641 (9th Cir. 1998), do not counsel otherwise.
21
those cases, the courts considered whether an adequate remedy for
22
the parties’ claims was available in the Court of Federal Claims
23
and concluded that there was not, because the parties sought
24
equitable relief that could not satisfied by a monetary judgment
25
and the Court of Federal Claims could not hear equitable claims.
26
Here, an alternate remedy, the provision of medical care by a
27
different government agency, can be ordered by the Board of
28
Veterans’ Appeals and Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
49
In
1
Plaintiffs assert in their response that the Court has
2
previously noted that Plaintiffs’ ability to seek health care from
3
the DVA “does not necessarily relieve the DOD and the Army from
4
being required independently to provide medical care, particularly
5
because Plaintiffs may be able to establish that the scope of
6
their duty may be different than that of the DVA.”
7
Docket No. 502, 18 (citing Class Cert. Order, Docket No. 485, 25).
8
However, Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to support that
9
the duty of DOD and the Army is in fact any broader than that of
Pls.’ Reply,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the DVA.
11
eligible for medical care from the DVA, “they are not receiving
12
this medical care from the DVA.”
13
No. 519, 1.
14
members can challenge the DVA’s failure to provide medical care
15
through the statutorily-created appeals scheme.
16
although Plaintiffs suggest that the quality of medical care
17
provided by the DVA is inferior to that of the DOD and the Army,
18
they have not shown that the care is inadequate or that they are
19
unable to address any inadequacies through the DVA system.
20
extent that Plaintiffs argue that the DVA medical care is a
21
“rationing system,” apparently referring to the fact that not all
22
veterans may enroll in the DVA’s comprehensive medical care
23
program, no such rationing is imposed on the duty of the DVA to
24
provide no-cost care to veterans for service-connected
25
disabilities.7
Plaintiffs contend that, even if class members are
Pls.’ Post-Hearing Resp., Docket
This, however, does not undermine the fact that class
In addition,
To the
Plaintiffs also speculate, “It is possible that
26
27
28
7
In addition to providing veterans with medical care for serviceconnected disabilities, the DVA offers eligible veterans a
“medical benefits package” of basic and preventive care that
50
1
many class members are not even eligible for DVA medical care,”
2
id. (citing 38 U.S.C. § 5303(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.12), but provide no
3
evidence that there are any such class members.
4
To the extent that Plaintiffs argue that the organizational
5
Plaintiffs are unable to bring their medical care claims through
6
the DVA system and thus have no adequate alternative remedy, this
7
argument is unavailing.
8
these organizations has its own right to medical care.
9
to the extent that the organizational Plaintiffs are asserting the
Plaintiffs have not shown that either of
Further,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
rights of the members of their organizations, those members can
11
seek care through the DVA for any disabilities, injuries or
12
illnesses suffered as a result of participation in the
13
experimentation program.
14
prevail on claims here that their members cannot prevail upon
15
directly.
The organizational Plaintiffs may not
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
includes outpatient and inpatient medical, surgical, and mental
health care, prescription drugs coverage, emergency care,
comprehensive rehabilitative care and other services. 38 C.F.R.
§ 1738(a). To receive the medical benefits package, a veteran
must generally be enrolled in the DVA health-care system. 38
C.F.R. §§ 17.36(a), 17.37. Veterans who qualify for enrollment
are placed into one of eight priority groups. 38 C.F.R.
§ 17.36(b). Assignment to a priority group involves a
consideration of factors including income and a percent rating
that attempts to quantify the decrease in veterans’ earning
capacity based on their service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R.
§§ 4.1, 17.36(b).
The Secretary determines, based on the
“relevant internal and external factors, e.g., economic changes,
changes in medical practices, and waiting times to obtain an
appointment for care,” which priority groups will actually be
eligible for enrollment. 38 C.F.R. § 17.36(b),(c). Presently,
the DVA enrolls veterans in all priority categories, except those
in subcategories (v) and (vi) of priority category eight, which
consists of “Noncompensable zero percent service-connected
veterans” and “Nonservice-connected veterans” who do not meet
certain income guidelines or moved from a higher priority
category. 38 C.F.R. § 17.26(b)(8), (c)(2).
51
1
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendants are entitled
2
to summary adjudication that sovereign immunity has not been
3
waived with regard to this claim because Plaintiffs and the class
4
members can seek medical care through the DVA and challenge any
5
denial of care through the statutory scheme prescribed by
6
Congress.
7
II.
8
9
Constitutional claims
In their cross-motion, Defendants also seek judgment on
Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims against the DOD and the Army
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
related to notice and health care.
11
summary judgment on these claims.
Plaintiffs have not moved for
12
Defendants argue that there is no constitutional right for
13
access to government information, so Plaintiffs’ constitutional
14
claim for notice fails, and that there is no constitutional right
15
to free health care, so Plaintiffs’ claim for health care fails.
16
Defendants further contend that no court has ever granted a
17
request for continuing health care based on a violation of a
18
substantive due process right to bodily integrity.
19
they also state, “Because Plaintiffs cannot identify any
20
substantive entitlement to Notice or health care under the APA or
21
Constitution, their procedural due process claims regarding the
22
alleged absence of any procedures to challenge the deprivation of
23
Notice and health care should be dismissed.”
24
Cross-Mot. at 43.
25
In a footnote,
Defs.’ Opp. and
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants did not move on their actual
26
Constitutional claims and so the burden of production never
27
shifted to Plaintiffs.
28
be granted summary judgment on those claims.
Thus, they contend Defendants should not
52
1
As summarized in the class certification order, Plaintiffs
2
asserted the following constitutional claims against the DOD and
3
the Army in this case:
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
(2) under the Fifth Amendment, that these Defendants’
failure to provide class members with notice, medical
care and a release from secrecy oaths violated their
substantive due process liberty rights, including their
right to bodily integrity;
(3) under the Fifth Amendment, that these Defendants’
failure to provide class members with any procedures
whatsoever to challenge this deprivation violated their
procedural due process rights;
(4) under the Fifth Amendment, that these Defendants’
failure to comply with their own regulations and
procedures regarding notice and medical care deprived
class members of their due process rights; and
(5) under the First and Fifth Amendment, that the
failure to provide a release from secrecy oaths
prevented class members from filing claims for benefits
with the DVA and thereby violated their right of access
to the courts.
15
Docket No. 485, 10 (numbering in original).
16
Court certified only one claim, that brought under the Fifth
17
Amendment for Defendants’ failure to comply with their own
18
regulations, to proceed on a class-wide basis.
19
certification as to the other constitutional claims.
20
Of these claims, the
The Court denied
In their motion, Defendants clearly address Plaintiffs’
21
second claim for deprivation of substantive due process rights,
22
including the right to bodily integrity, the third claim for
23
violation of their procedural due process rights by depriving them
24
of their protected interest without providing them with procedures
25
by which to challenge the deprivation, and the fifth claim
26
regarding access to the courts.
27
Docket No. 495, 41-43 & n.42, 49-50.
28
substantively to Defendants’ challenges to these claims, asserting
Defs.’ Opp. and Cross-Mot.,
53
Plaintiffs do not respond
1
incorrectly that Defendants ignore these claims.
2
Reply and Opp., Docket No. 502, 21, 23 n.22.
3
Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the
4
second, third and fifth claims against the Army and DOD.
5
See, e.g., Pls.’
Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs also dispute that Defendants properly moved on the
6
fourth claim.
7
that they moved “on all claims raised and remaining in Plaintiffs’
8
Fourth Amended Complaint.”
9
495; see also id. at 1 (arguing that “Plaintiffs’ constitutional
Defendants made clear in the notice of their motion
Defs.’ Opp. and Cross-Mot., Docket No.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
claims,” without any limitation, “are similarly baseless and
11
should be dismissed”).
12
cannot identify any substantive entitlement to Notice or health
13
care under the APA or the Constitution” and thus “their procedural
14
due process claim regarding the alleged absence of any procedures
15
to challenge the deprivation of Notice and health care should be
16
dismissed.”
17
In their reply, they further explained that not “every violation
18
of a regulation amount[s] to a violation of an individual’s due
19
process rights,” that Plaintiffs cannot show the agency
20
regulations at issue here have themselves created a constitutional
21
right to those procedures and thus that there is no constitutional
22
claim for violation of those regulations.
23
No. 513-1, 15.
24
Defendants also argued that “Plaintiffs
Defs.’ Opp. and Cross-Mot., Docket No. 495, 43 n.42.
Defs.’ Reply, Docket
In response, Plaintiffs rely on cases in which courts have
25
held that agencies are bound to follow their own regulations and
26
that failure to do so may violate the due process clause.
27
However, Defendants are correct that such a failure does not
28
always amount to a constitutional violation.
54
See United States v.
1
Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 752-753 (1979) (finding no constitutional
2
violation where the IRS “admittedly” failed to follow its own
3
regulations, on the basis that it was not “a case in which the Due
4
Process Clause is implicated because an individual has reasonably
5
relied on agency regulations promulgated for his guidance or
6
benefit and has suffered substantially because of their violation
7
by the agency”).
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Plaintiffs have not shown that here.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims is granted.
III. Secrecy oath claims
Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’
12
individual claims against the DOD, the Army and the CIA based on
13
secrecy oaths.
14
A. Claims against the CIA
15
Defendants argue that the CIA is entitled to summary judgment
16
on Plaintiffs’ individual secrecy oath claims against that agency
17
for a number of reasons.
18
produce no evidence that the CIA ever administered secrecy oaths
19
to any individual Plaintiff or VVA member.
20
that the claims are moot because the CIA provided a sworn
21
declaration in June 2011 attesting that the individual Plaintiffs
22
and identified VVA members did not give secrecy oaths to the CIA
23
and releasing them from any secrecy oath that they believed that
24
they might have with the CIA.
25
cannot release individuals from a secrecy oath administered by the
26
DOD or the Army.
27
28
First, they contend that Plaintiffs can
Second, they assert
Finally, they argue that the CIA
Plaintiffs do not dispute that they cannot provide any
evidence that the CIA administered secrecy oaths or that
55
1
declaratory relief against the CIA that addressed the validity of
2
DOD or Army secrecy oaths would be ineffective.
3
that they have received all relief that they desired on this claim
4
in relation to the individuals released by the CIA through the
5
June 2011 declaration.
6
entire claim against the CIA, “[i]n light of the CIA’s statement
7
that the secrecy oath release encompasses all VVA members,” and
8
that they “submit that claim to the Court.”
9
Docket No. 502, 36.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
They also concede
They state that this extends to their
Pls.’ Reply and Opp.,
Defendants reply that Plaintiffs mischaracterized their
11
response.
12
the VVA members who were identified by name therein and did not
13
encompass an additional twenty-seven VVA members whom Plaintiffs
14
identified as having been test participants for the first time six
15
months after the close of discovery.
16
They state that the 2011 declaration encompassed only
Irrespective of whether those additional twenty-seven VVA
17
members were released from any possible secrecy oaths through the
18
2011 declaration, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary
19
judgment on the secrecy oath claim against the CIA.
20
have not produced any evidence that any secrecy oaths were
21
administered by the CIA, or are fairly traceable to the CIA,
22
involving any Plaintiff or VVA member, including those twenty-
23
seven individuals who were identified later.
Plaintiffs
24
B. Claims against the DOD and the Army
25
Defendants also move for summary judgment on the secrecy oath
26
claims against the DOD and Army.
27
have not presented any evidence that they or the VVA members
28
currently feel restrained by any such oath and that Defendants
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs
56
1
have issued two memoranda releasing them already.
2
that, as a result, Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this claim.
They contend
3
Plaintiffs respond that the Court already has rejected this
4
argument when it refused to hold that certain Plaintiffs and VVA
5
members lacked standing at the class certification stage.
6
However, as Defendants point out, Plaintiffs presently have the
7
burden to establish that there is at least a genuine issue of
8
material fact as to standing of each Plaintiff.
9
Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 329
See Dep’t of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
(1999) (“To prevail on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 motion
11
for summary judgment . . ., mere allegations of injury are
12
insufficient.
13
exists no genuine issue of material fact as to justiciability or
14
the merits.”).
Rather, a plaintiff must establish that there
15
Plaintiffs assert that “it is clear that” they “‘could
16
benefit from equitable relief that would invalidate the secrecy
17
oaths altogether.”
18
in the instant motion, they have not cited any evidence to support
19
that they or the VVA members still suffer ongoing effects of the
20
oaths, such as fear of prosecution.
21
cited the evidence regarding Dufrane relied upon by the Court in
22
the class certification order, but do not address the arguments
23
raised by Defendants regarding the other individuals.
Pls.’ Reply and Opp., Docket No. 36.
However,
At the hearing, Plaintiffs
24
In the class certification order, the Court noted that
25
Plaintiffs had offered “evidence that Dufrane testified that he
26
continued to feel bound by the secrecy oath to some extent” and
27
that there was no evidence cited that showed that Defendants had
28
communicated an unconditional release to him.
57
Class Cert. Order,
1
Docekt No. 485, 28-29.
2
Dufrane’s deposition, in which he stated he did not think that he
3
was allowed to talk about his experiences at Edgewood Arsenal
4
“completely” because he had been told not to talk about some
5
aspects of what happened and that he still felt constrained by the
6
secrecy.
7
however, that there was nothing in his memory that he could
8
identify that he wants to talk about but is unable to.
9
94:17-23.
Defendants again offer testimony from
See Docket No. 496-64, 92:1-94:16.
He went on to state,
Id. at
In addition, Defendants have now offered evidence that
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Dufrane had seen the 1993 Perry memorandum prior to his
11
deposition.
12
unconditional release from any secrecy oath that had been given.
13
In light of the facts that a full release was communicated to
14
Dufrane, and that there is nothing in particular that he presently
15
feels that he is prevented from speaking about, although he feels
16
generally constrained, he will not receive a benefit from a
17
further declaration “that Plaintiffs are released from any
18
obligations or penalties under their secrecy oaths.”
19
Compl. ¶ 183.
20
Defendants’ argument that there can be no showing of future threat
21
of prosecution because there have not been any such enforcement
22
actions in the past.
As quoted above, that memorandum provided a full and
Fourth Am.
Finally, Plaintiffs do not offer any response to
23
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary
24
judgment on the secrecy oath claims against the DOD and the Army.
25
IV.
Claim that DVA is a biased adjudicator of benefits claims
26
Defendants seek summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims
27
against the DVA for biased adjudication of their benefits claims.
28
Defendants argue that 38 U.S.C. § 511 deprives this Court of
58
1
jurisdiction over this claim because it bars consideration of the
2
relief that Plaintiffs seek.
3
cannot establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
4
DVA was involved in the testing programs at issue here.
5
they contend that Plaintiffs cannot make a sufficient showing that
6
the DVA was an inherently biased adjudicator of their benefits
7
claims.
They also argue that Plaintiffs
Finally,
8
A. Section 511
9
Defendants have previously argued on two occasions that § 511
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
deprives this Court of jurisdiction to hear this claim, and on
11
both occasions, the Court has rejected the argument.
12
No. 177, 8-11; Docket No. 485, 31-34.
13
they are now making a new argument, which the Court has not
14
addressed: that the relief sought by Plaintiffs cannot be granted
15
under § 511.
16
decisions were correct and do not address Defendants’ purportedly
17
new argument.
See Docket
Defendants contend that
Plaintiffs respond simply that the Court’s prior
18
Section 511 provides,
19
The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact
necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law
that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary
to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans.
Subject to subsection (b), the decision of the Secretary
as to any such question shall be final and conclusive
and may not be reviewed by any other official or by any
court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or
otherwise.
20
21
22
23
24
25
38 U.S.C. § 511(a).
In granting Plaintiffs leave to amend assert this claim
26
against the DVA, the Court acknowledged that § 511 “precludes
27
federal district courts from reviewing challenges to individual
28
benefits determinations, even if they are framed as constitutional
59
1
challenges.”
2
§ 511 on claims that “purport not to challenge individual benefits
3
decisions, but rather the manner in which such decisions are
4
made,” had not been addressed by the Ninth Circuit.
5
the Court reviewed several decisions from other circuit courts of
6
appeals that did address this issue.
7
detail Broudy v. Mather, 460 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Beamon v.
8
Brown, 125 F.3d 965, 972 (6th Cir. 1997)).
9
set forth in Broudy and Beamon, the Court held,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Docket No. 177, 8.
At that time, the effect of
Id.
Id. at 9-11 (discussing in
Applying the standards
Section 511 does not bar Plaintiffs’ claim under the
Fifth Amendment. Under this theory, they mount a facial
attack on the DVA as the decision-maker. They do not
challenge the DVA’s procedures or seek review of an
individual benefits determination. Nor do they attack
any particular decision made by the Secretary. The crux
of their claim is that, because the DVA allegedly was
involved in the testing programs at issue, the agency is
incapable of making neutral, unbiased benefits
determinations for veterans who were test participants.
This bias, according to Plaintiffs, renders the benefits
determination process constitutionally defective as to
them and other class members. Whether the DVA is an
inherently biased adjudicator does not implicate a
question of law or fact “necessary to a decision by the
Secretary” related to the provision of veterans’
benefits. See Thomas v. Principi, 394 F.3d 970, 975
(D.C. Cir. 2005).
Docket No. 177, 11.
Defendants later moved for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of this order, asserting that the Ninth Circuit’s
recent decision in Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d
1013 (2012), compelled a different result.
The Court rejected
this argument, finding that “Veterans for Common Sense does not
require reconsideration of the Court’s prior conclusion.”
No. 485, 33.
This Court explained,
27
28
Thus,
In that case, two nonprofit organizations challenged
delays in the provision of care and adjudication of
60
Docket
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
claims by the DVA and the lack of adequate procedures
during the claims process. The court found that the
challenges to delays were barred by § 511, because to
adjudicate those claims, the district court would have
to examine the circumstances surrounding the DVA’s
provisions of benefits to individual veterans and
adjudication of individual claims. Id. at 1027-30.
However, after discussing the decisions reached by other
circuits in Broudy, Beamon and several other cases, the
court concluded that it did have jurisdiction over the
claims seeking review of the DVA’s procedures for
handling benefits claims at its regional offices. Id.
at 1033-35. In so holding, the court stated that,
unlike the other claims, this claim “does not require us
to review ‘decisions’ affecting the provision of
benefits to any individual claimants” and noted that the
plaintiff “does not challenge decisions at all.” Id. at
1034.
In Veterans for Common Sense, the Ninth Circuit explained,
A consideration of the constitutionality of the
procedures in place, which frame the system by which a
veteran presents his claims to the VA, is different than
a consideration of the decisions that emanate through
the course of the presentation of those claims. In this
respect, VCS does not ask us to review the decisions of
the VA in the cases of individual veterans, but to
consider, in the “generality of cases,” the risk of
erroneous deprivation inherent in the existing
procedures compared to the probable value of the
additional procedures requested by VCS. . . . Evaluating
under the Due Process Clause the need for subpoena
power, the ability to obtain discovery, or any of the
other procedures VCS requests is sufficiently
independent of any VA decision as to an individual
veteran’s claim for benefits that § 511 does not bar our
jurisdiction.
20
678 F.3d at 1034.
21
Ninth Circuit considered some of the same authority and applied a
22
similar standard as this Court did in its earlier order,” and thus
23
concluded that it “would have reached the same conclusion if it
24
had had the benefit of the decision in Veterans for Common Sense
25
at that time.”
26
In its prior order, this Court found that “the
Docket No. 485, 34.
Defendants now argue that the Court’s assessment of the
27
“manner in which the VA determines benefits eligibility . . .
28
plainly implicates ‘decisions that relate to benefits
61
1
determination.’”
2
the claim for which the Ninth Circuit found jurisdiction in
3
Veterans for Common Sense, evaluating whether the risk of actual
4
bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable is “sufficiently
5
independent of any VA decision as to an individual veteran’s claim
6
for benefits that § 511 does not bar” this Court’s jurisdiction.
7
See 678 F.3d at 1034.
8
9
Defs.’ Opp. and Cross-Mot. at 52.
However, like
To the extent that Defendants now contend that Veterans for
Common Sense does not allow the Court to issue the relief that
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Plaintiffs seek, the Court rejects this argument.
11
in addressing the plaintiff’s claim that delays in the provision
12
of mental health care violated the APA and the Constitution, the
13
Ninth Circuit noted that
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
In that case,
in order to provide the relief that VCS seeks, the
district court would have to prescribe the procedures
for processing mental health claims and supervise the
enforcement of its order. To determine whether its
order has been followed, the district court would have
to look at individual processing times. . . . [I]t would
embroil the district court in the day-to-day operation
of the VA and, of necessity, require the district court
to monitor individual benefits determinations.
Id. at 1028.
Here, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the DVA’s decisions
21
regarding entitlement to SCDDC and medical care are “null and
22
void” and an “injunction forbidding defendants from continuing to
23
use biased decision makers to decide their eligibility” for
24
benefits.
25
plan to remedy denials of affected claims for SCDDC and/or
26
eligibility for medical care based upon service connection”).
27
the extent that Plaintiffs request that the Court reverse the past
28
benefits determinations made by the DVA--or at least the denials--
Fourth Am. Compl. ¶¶ 233-34; see also id. (seeking “a
62
To
1
their claims are not “sufficiently independent” of any VA decision
2
on an individual veteran’s claim for benefits.
3
the extent that Plaintiffs seek an order vacating all past
4
benefits determinations and requiring that they be re-adjudicated,
5
the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to do so.
6
Accordingly, to
However, Plaintiffs also ask that the Court issue “an order
7
directing the DVA . . . to devise procedures for resolving such
8
claims that comply with the due process clause, which involve, at
9
a minimum, an independent decision maker, all to be submitted to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the Court for advance approval.”
11
compliance with such a plan as to adjudications of future claims
12
would not require the Court to look at individual benefits
13
determinations, but rather to consider who will adjudicate the
14
claims.
15
Ninth Circuit in Veterans for Common Sense because it involves the
16
“consideration of the constitutionality of the procedures in
17
place, which frame the system by which a veteran presents his
18
claims to the VA,” and not the “consideration of the decisions
19
that emanate through the course of the presentation of those
20
claims.”
21
consider Plaintiffs’ claim for prospective injunctive and
22
declaratory relief.
Id. at ¶ 234.
Monitoring
Plaintiffs’ request is similar to that permitted by the
678 F.3d at 1034.
Thus, the Court has jurisdiction to
23
B. DVA’s purported bias
24
“The crux of Plaintiffs’ claim” against the DVA is that,
25
“‘because the DVA allegedly was involved in the testing programs
26
at issue, the agency is incapable of making neutral, unbiased
27
benefits determinations for veterans who were test participants,’”
28
which “‘renders the benefits determination process
63
1
constitutionally defective.’”
2
502, 23 (quoting Class Cert. Order, Docket No. 485, 32).
3
Pls.’ Reply and Opp., Docket No.
“There are two ways in which a plaintiff may establish that
he has been denied his constitutional right to a fair hearing
5
before an impartial tribunal.”
6
741 (9th Cir. 1995).
7
surrounding circumstances may demonstrate actual bias on the part
8
of the adjudicator.”
9
pecuniary or personal interest in the outcome of the proceedings
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
4
may create an appearance of partiality that violates due process,
11
even without any showing of actual bias.”
12
(citations omitted); see also United States v. Oregon, 44 F.3d
13
758, 772 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that the plaintiffs “must show
14
an unacceptable probability of actual bias on the part of those
15
who have actual decisionmaking power over their claims”); Exxon
16
Corp. v. Heinze, 32 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1994) (“the
17
Constitution is concerned not only with actual bias but also with
18
‘the appearance of justice’”).
19
of unconstitutional bias, a plaintiff must ‘overcome a presumption
20
of honesty and integrity’ on the part of decisionmakers.”
21
Stivers, 71 F.3d at 741.
22
prejudged, or reasonably appears to have prejudged, an issue.’”
23
Id.; see also Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868,
24
883-884 (2009) (“In defining these standards the Court has asked
25
whether, ‘under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies
26
and human weakness,’ the interest ‘poses such a risk of actual
27
bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the
Stivers v. Pierce, 71 F.3d 732,
“In some cases, the proceedings and
Id.
“In other cases, the adjudicator’s
Stivers, 71 F.3d at 741
“In attempting to make out a claim
“He must show that the adjudicator ‘has
28
64
1
guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.’”)
2
(citation omitted).
3
Plaintiffs argue that the DVA as an agency appears to be
4
biased because it was involved in the testing at issue here.
5
Plaintiffs have offered evidence that a CIA memorandum identified
6
the DVA as among the suppliers of chemicals used for tests, which,
7
when conducted on humans, were carried out jointly with the Army
8
and Edgewood Arsenal.
9
Defendants do not dispute, that the DVA separately carried out
Plaintiffs also offer evidence, which
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
human testing using some of the same substances that were used in
11
the testing programs at issue here, including LSD, mescaline,
12
thorazine, atropine and scopolamine.
13
Plaintiffs’ evidence as true, this is not sufficient to support a
14
conclusion that the probability of bias or prejudgment on the part
15
of all of the DVA adjudicators was “intolerably high,” so as to
16
result in a constitutional violation.
17
35, 57 (1975).
18
the substances that the DVA provided to Defendants were actually
19
used at all, much less that they were used on humans who were
20
service members.
21
necessarily mean that its adjudicators would have an interest in
22
deciding claims in an inherently biased fashion.
23
point out, Plaintiffs’ evidence shows that, after the DVA began
24
receiving claims for benefits related to LSD testing, it
25
proactively sought to learn more about the long-term effects of
26
the drug in order to adjudicate the claims.
27
Decl., Ex. 22, Docket No. 503-9, DVA135 000062.
28
that the DVA sought to resolve such claims properly, not that it
However, accepting all of
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S.
Plaintiffs have not offered evidence to show that
In addition, the DVA’s involvement did not
65
As Defendants
See Patterson Reply
This suggests
1
sought to avoid responsibility for providing care.
2
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that there is any connection
3
between the DVA’s participation in the testing and the
4
adjudicators at the agency who actually resolve their disability
5
claims.
6
the Veterans Benefits Administration, an arm of the DVA separate
7
from the Veterans Health Administration, the arm of the agency
8
which conducted research into the same substances as used in the
9
testing programs at issue.
Further,
As Defendants point out, these claims are adjudicated by
See United States v. Oregon, 44 F.3d
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
at 772 (characterizing plaintiff’s proffered evidence of bias by
11
the Oregon Department of Justice as “fairly weak” where, among
12
other things, plaintiff had not shown that any officials involved
13
in the prior actions it contended showed bias would be involved in
14
the challenged adjudication).
15
is too meager to support the existence of an appearance of bias
16
that permeates the entire agency.
17
The evidence Plaintiffs offer here
This conclusion is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent,
18
in which the court rejected claims of institutional bias where
19
there was insufficient evidence to support that the adjudicative
20
body itself, as opposed to an affiliated person or agency, was
21
biased.
22
the state of Oregon’s administrative procedures for determining
23
water rights.
24
Department of Justice, which provided legal advice to the Oregon
25
Water Resources Department (OWRD), the agency charged with
26
adjudicating their claims, had previously taken litigating
27
positions against the Tribe’s water rights.
28
Circuit rejected the claim, finding that the Tribe had not shown
In United States v. Oregon, the Klamath Tribe challenged
44 F.3d at 771.
The Tribe argued that the Oregon
66
Id.
The Ninth
1
that the ODOJ would have “any significant role to play in the
2
adjudication or any impact on its outcome” and thus had failed to
3
show “an unacceptable probability of actual bias by the actual
4
decisionmakers.”
5
court considered a claim by a landowner who asserted that the
6
hearing procedures employed by the Assessment Appeals Board for
7
Orange County, when considering his challenge to the County
8
Assessor’s valuation of his property and assessment of property
9
taxes, violated his due process rights.
Id. at 772.
Similarly, in a recent case, the
William Jefferson & Co.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
v. Bd. of Assessment & Appeals No. 3 for Orange Cnty., 695 F.3d
11
960, 961-62 (9th Cir. 2012).
12
procedures created the appearance of unfairness” because the Board
13
was advised by an attorney who worked in the same office as the
14
attorney representing the Assessor. Id. at 963-65.
15
noted that, even if there were evidence that the Board’s attorney
16
advisor “was biased in favor of the Assessor, which there is not,”
17
such evidence was not necessarily sufficient by itself to
18
“conclude that the adjudicating body--the Board itself--was
19
biased.”
20
evidence of bias by some departments or individuals at the DVA,
21
there is no evidence of bias by the DVA adjudicators of the claims
22
at issue here.
23
Id. at 965.
He argued that “the Board’s
The court
As in these cases, even if there were some
Plaintiffs also argue that the DVA “manifested its inherent
24
bias.”
25
contend that the DVA has disseminated misinformation about the
26
testing, which evidences its inherent bias.
27
various documents, including the letter and fact sheet that the
28
DVA sent to veterans about the substances and health effects, a
Pls.’ Reply and Opp., Docket No. 502, 27.
67
Plaintiffs
They argue that
1
training letter sent to DVA regional offices specifying rules for
2
adjudicating benefits claims and a letter sent to clinicians
3
examining veterans, all included inaccuracies and
4
misrepresentations, including that a particular study “found no
5
significant long term health effects in Edgewood Arsenal test
6
subjects.”
7
deviated from its own normal claim adjudication procedures in
8
deciding these claims, and from the operative regulations, by
9
giving the DOD the sole authority to validate whether an
They also argue that there is evidence that the DVA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
individual participated in any chemical or biological testing,
11
instead of making a decision based on the entirety of the evidence
12
in the record.
13
that, because the DOD did not provide this verification for many
14
people, many claims for service connection were denied.
15
They contend that this evidences bias.
They state
Defendants respond that Plaintiffs’ purported evidence of
16
bias in the DVA’s adjudicatory system is irrelevant because the
17
Court allowed Plaintiffs to bring a claim alleging that the DVA
18
was an inherently biased adjudicator, not a claim of actual bias.
19
They also argue that the evidence Plaintiffs submit cannot be
20
reviewed by the Court under § 511.
21
Plaintiffs reply that § 511 is not an evidentiary
22
exclusionary rule.
23
court did look at the type of inquiry that the district court
24
would have to carry out in resolving the claims, when deciding if
25
the cause of action itself was barred under that section.
26
example, in resolving the cause of action regarding delayed
27
processing of mental health claims, the court said that “the
28
district court would have no basis for evaluating [the argument
However, in Veterans for Common Sense, the
68
For
that the average processing time was too long] without inquiring
2
into the circumstances of at least a representative sample of the
3
veterans whom VCS represents; then the district court would have
4
to decide whether the processing time was reasonable or not as to
5
each individual case.”
6
Plaintiffs invite the Court to examine the reasons that individual
7
service members’ claims were denied or the evidence that was
8
submitted to show that an injury was service-connected in
9
particular cases, see e.g., Pls.’ Reply and Opp., Docket No. 502,
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
30, such evidence does fall into the category of which the Ninth
11
Circuit disapproved.
12
678 F.3d at 1027.
To the extent that
Further, even if the Court could properly consider all of the
13
evidence submitted by Plaintiffs, they have not made a sufficient
14
showing that these materials reveal that there is actual bias or a
15
substantial appearance of bias on the part of the DVA
16
adjudicators.
17
accompanied the DVA notice letter showed bias because it included
18
what a DVA representative believed to be an inaccuracy and because
19
the letter itself purportedly discouraged veterans from seeking
20
care.
21
been mistaken, it was the result of a reasonable difference of
22
scientific opinion and does not manifestly reveal a bias on behalf
23
of the DVA, which was not its author, or of the DVA’s
24
adjudicators.
25
veterans from coming to the DVA for care; instead, it directly
26
encouraged them to do so.
27
training letters to clinicians show bias because they stated that
28
studies showed no “significant” long-term health or physical
Plaintiffs argue that the DOD fact sheet that
However, although the statement in the fact sheet may have
Further, the DVA’s letter did not discourage
Plaintiffs also argue that certain DVA
69
1
effects from participation in testing.
2
fact sheet, these statements reflect a difference of scientific
3
opinion as to what constitutes “significant” effects, a debate
4
that is consistent with the evidence that has been presented to
5
the Court.
6
the DVA diverged from its normal procedures by depending on the
7
DOD to “to validate whether an individual participated in any
8
chemical or biological test,” this argument is also unpersuasive.
9
Defendants have offered evidence that, in other contexts, the DVA
However, as with the DOD
Finally, to the extent that Plaintiffs contend that
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
does depend on the DOD to provide it with details of veterans’
11
service to be used in adjudicating claims, such as when and in
12
what manner the individual served, and this is sometimes specified
13
in written DVA regulations.
14
the DOD’s service records as reliable indicators of whether a
15
person making a claim actually served in the military and in what
16
context.
17
DVA’s obligation to consider “all pertinent medical and lay
18
evidence” and to base its determination on “review of the entire
19
evidence of record” when resolving a claim of service-connection.
20
38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).
It is rational for the DVA to accept
This is not inconsistent with, or an abdication of, the
21
Accordingly, because Plaintiffs have failed to raise a
22
material dispute of fact that there was an appearance of bias or
23
an unconstitutionally high probability of actual bias on the part
24
of the DVA adjudicators, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
25
on this claim is granted.
26
27
28
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ motion for
partial summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part,
70
1
and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in
2
part and DENIED in part.
3
4
The Court rules as follows:
(1)
The DOD and the Army are granted summary judgment on:
(a) all APA claims for notice, except to the extent that
6
Plaintiffs seek to require the Army to warn class members of any
7
information acquired after the last notice that may affect their
8
well-being when that information has become available and in the
9
future; (b) all APA claims for medical care; (c) the claim that,
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
5
under the Fifth Amendment, these Defendants’ failure to provide
11
Plaintiffs with notice, medical care and a release from secrecy
12
oaths violated their substantive due process liberty rights,
13
including their right to bodily integrity; (d) the claim that,
14
under the Fifth Amendment, these Defendants’ failure to provide
15
Plaintiffs with any procedures whatsoever to challenge this
16
deprivation violated their procedural due process rights; (e) the
17
claim that, under the Fifth Amendment, these Defendants’ failure
18
to comply with their own regulations and procedures regarding
19
notice and medical care deprived Plaintiffs of their due process
20
rights; and (f) the claim that, under the First and Fifth
21
Amendment, the failure to provide a release from secrecy oaths
22
prevented Plaintiffs from filing claims for benefits with the DVA
23
and thereby violated their right of access to the courts.
24
(2)
The DOD, the Army and the CIA are granted summary
25
judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims seeking a declaration that the
26
secrecy oaths are invalid and an injunction requiring Defendants
27
to notify Plaintiffs that they have been released from such oaths.
28
71
1
2
3
(3)
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’
claim against the DVA is granted.
(4)
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the APA
4
notice claim is granted to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to
5
require the Army to warn class members of any information acquired
6
after the last notice was provided, and in the future, that may
7
affect their well-being, when that information becomes available.
8
9
The Court VACATES the final pretrial conference and trial
dates.
Within fourteen days of the date of this Order, the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
parties shall submit a joint proposed injunction and judgment that
11
comply with the terms of this Order.
12
agree to the terms of the injunction and the judgment, they shall
13
file a single form of each that shows the terms to which they were
14
able to agree and their separate proposals for the remaining
15
terms.
16
If the parties are unable to
Thereafter, an injunction and judgment shall enter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
19
Dated: 7/24/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
72
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?