Keeling v. VA Hospital et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 5/31/2012; an appropriate order shall issuecc:counsel (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
SHELLEY E. KEELING
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11CV-202-R
VA HOSPITAL MARION ILL. et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Shelley E. Keeling filed a pro se complaint. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3),
“[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.” Upon review of the complaint, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over this case and will dismiss the action by separate Order.
I.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on a general-complaint form against the VA Hospital Marion
Ill. and the Dept. of Veteran Affairs. As grounds for filing this action in federal court, he asserts:
“Defendant failed to abide by Article 14 of the Constitution by not giving Plaintiff due process.”
As the statement of claim, Plaintiff states that he was denied VA benefits for
unemployability based on an examination he underwent at the VA Hospital Marion Ill. There,
an examiner opined that Plaintiff’s “back condition doesn’t make him unemployable” and
“doesn’t preclude him from obtaining and holding a gainful employment based on his work
experience as a painter.” To the complaint, Plaintiff attaches a decision of the Department of
Veterans Affairs denying him VA benefits based at least in part on the examination conducted at
the VA Hospital Marion Ill. Plaintiff states that he was advised of the right to appeal.
Plaintiff reports that the VA also informed him that since he was not eligible for benefits,
he was overpaid and would have to repay the monies to the VA. He reports that again he was
advised of the right to appeal. More specifically, Plaintiff advises that in a letter dated
November 7, 2011, he was informed of the repayment amount of $28,070.00 and was informed
of his options (pay in full, make payment arrangements, or seek a waiver). He continues that the
“VA Dept” stated that withholdings would begin February 2012 but that on December 1, 2011,
the “VA Administration began withholding 772.00 from Plaintiff’s check.” In withholding the
money, claims Plaintiff, the VA ignored the fact that he had filed a timely waiver request, that
the VA’s own letter stated that he had the right to appeal, and that the VA stated that
withholdings would not begin until February 2012. According to Plaintiff,
[T]he doors were clearly open for this Complaint when Defendants clearly Acted as
Judge and Jury violating Plaintiff’s rights to due process[.] Plaintiff further states for
the Record Defendants Actions resulted in a sentence of Capital Punishment for the
Plaintiff and his family cutting off their Bread, and Butter, and creating undue
Hardship. Plaintiff would also Like this Honorable Court to be made aware of the
Fact Plaintiff had filed many complaints against both defendants before action was
Taken against him, and feels he should have been protected against reteliation under
any Federal law that may be available.
As relief, Plaintiff requests money that he “should have been recieving from the time he
should have been declared service connected and unemployable to the present date” and punitive
damages.
II.
“[I]t is well established that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing
only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute.” Hudson v. Coleman, 347 F.3d 138,
141 (6th Cir. 2003). “Jurisdiction defines the contours of the authority of courts to hear and
decide cases, and, in so doing, it dictates the scope of the judiciary’s influence.” Douglas v. E.G.
2
Baldwin & Assoc. Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 606 (6th Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 515-16 (2006). Federal courts have an independent duty
to determine whether they have jurisdiction and to “police the boundaries of their own
jurisdiction.” Id. at 607 (quoting Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 165
(11th Cir. 1997)); Thornton v. Southwest Detroit Hosp., 895 F.2d 1131, 1133 (6th Cir. 1990)
(“[S]ubject matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte at any juncture because a federal court
lacks authority to hear a case without subject matter jurisdiction.”). The party who seeks to
invoke a federal district court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the court’s authority
to hear the case. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
Plaintiff challenges the denial of VA benefits and the recoupment of the overpayment of
benefits, alleging a violation of due process and retaliation. “Congress intended to preclude
district court jurisdiction over VA decisions relating to benefits claims, including decisions of
constitutional issues.” Beamon v. Brown, 125 F.3d 965, 974 (6th Cir. 1997) (emphasis added);
Velayo v. V.A. Domiciliary Aftercare Program, 36 F. App’x 403, 404 (10th Cir. 2002) (“Even
though Mr. Velayo has alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim in his complaint, it is well
established that we do not have jurisdiction pursuant to [38 U.S.C.] § 511(a) over a decision
which affects benefits, even if a constitutional right has been violated.”); Sugrue v. Derwinski, 26
F.3d 8, 10-11 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[T]he courts do not acquire jurisdiction to hear challenges to
benefits determinations merely because those challenges are cloaked in constitutional terms.”).
3
This does not mean that Plaintiff is without an avenue of relief. Congress enacted the
Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1988 (“VJRA”) (codified in various sections of 38 U.S.C.),
“and established a multi-tiered framework for the adjudication of claims regarding veterans
benefits.” Beamon, 125 F.3d at 967.
The process begins when a claimant files for benefits with a regional office of the
Department of Veterans Affairs. The regional office of the VA “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.” 38 U.S.C. § 511(a).
Upon receiving a decision from the regional office, the claimant may appeal to the
[Board of Veterans Appeals] BVA, which either issues the final decision of the
Secretary or remands the claim to the regional office for further development and
subsequent appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104. The Court of Veterans Appeals (“CVA”)
[now called the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims], an Article I court established
by Congress in the VJRA, has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the final
decisions by the BVA. 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a).1 The Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the CVA. 38 U.S.C. §
7292. If necessary, a claimant may petition the United States Supreme Court to
review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See 38 U.S.C.
§ 7291.
Beamon, 125 F.3d at 967; Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, -- U.S. --, 131 S. Ct. 1197,
1201 (2011) (“Review of Veterans Court decisions on certain issues of law is available in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. § 7292. Federal Circuit decisions may in
turn be reviewed by [the U.S. Supreme] Court by writ of certiorari.”).
Because Plaintiff is challenging decisions made by the Department of Veterans Affairs
related to benefits claims and because the VJRA provides an exclusive framework for the
adjudication of such claims, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.
1
The 1998 Amendments to Title 38, Pub. L. 105-368, Title V, § 512(a)(1), substituted “Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims” for “Court of Veterans Appeals.”
4
The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
Date:
May 31, 2012
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4413.005
5
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?