Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_86-cv-06160/USCOURTS-cand-3_86-cv-06160-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statutes

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEVERLY NEHMER, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendants.

No. C86-6160 TEH 

ORDER RE CLL CLAIMS

PROCEDURE 

On July 24, 2006, the Court held a telephonic status conference to assess defendant

United States Department of Veterans Affairs’ compliance with the Court’s Order of April

28, 2006 entitled Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and

Establishing Retroactive Benefits Claims Procedure (“April 28 Order”). Based on the

representations made by counsel for both parties in their written submissions and in their oral

statements, it is apparent that defendant has begun to establish mechanisms to comply with

the procedural steps outlined in the April 28 Order, but that the pace of progress in

adjudicating claims and making retroactive payments to class members is woefully

inadequate. 

Defendant estimates that it will adjudicate and make payment on claims at a rate of

100 claims files every 120 days, and that the initial group of 1,453 claimants will take 3.5

Case 3:86-cv-06160-WHA Document 373 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

years to adjudicate. (See Joint Status Statement [“JSS”] filed June 26, 2006, Exhibit 2,

Responses to Questions 10&11). Following that time frame, defendant would take an untold

number of years to adjudicate and make payment on the additional claimants among the

24,011 in the “Mailing Group.” Based on this information alone, the Court has grave

concern as to defendant’s compliance with the April 28 Order’s requirement that defendant

shall act in good faith to use all resources at its disposal to adjudicate CLL claims and make

retroactive payments as quickly as possible. (April 28 Order ¶ 4). 

Upon detailed review of all submissions and oral representations by defendant, the Court 

has determined that VA’s estimate of 3.5 years to review the initial group of files simply does

not comport with the underlying data. The Court explains as follows. Defendant has

represented, through the declaration of Thomas Pamperin, that each claims file requiring

“additional development” could be reviewed in approximately 8.45 hours, and that less

complex files could be reviewed in considerably shorter time. (Declaration of Thomas

Pamperin re Defendant’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, filed 2/10/06, at ¶ 15). In his

declaration, Mr. Pamperin estimated that 25 percent of all claims files would require

“additional review.” (Id.). During the telephonic status conference, counsel for plaintiffs

stated that many files are straightforward and will take less than 8.45 hours. Counsel for

defendant stated that some files could be reviewed more quickly, but that many will require

the 8.45 hours because they require medical expertise. 

Defendant also has represented that “VA has assigned the entire Philadelphia

Resource Center [“PRC”] staff to the Nehmer CLL project on a full-time basis.” (See JSS,

Exhibit 2, Response to Question 7). In response to a query from the Court at the telephonic

conference, defense counsel represented that twenty (20) people are on staff at the PRC and

are devoted to the CLL project. Defendant has represented that each staff member has 1,576

available hours for work per year. (Pamperin Decl. at ¶ 15). Thus, each staff member works

approximately 131.3 hours per month.

Case 3:86-cv-06160-WHA Document 373 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Based on these numbers, the Court calculates that twenty individuals working 131.3

hours amounts to approximately 2,626 hours devoted to the Nehmer CLL process each

month. Even if every single file were to take the full 8.45 hours of “additional development”

(an estimate that is overly conservative by all accounts), the initial group of 1,453 claimants

would require approximately 12,277 hours. Dividing the 2,626 hours of the PRC staff into

12,277 leads to the conclusion that the PRC ought to be able to complete review of the initial

files in less than five months (4.68 months to be precise). In other words, the files should be

reviewed at a minimum rate of approximately 310 per month. In contrast, defense counsel

represented at the telephonic conference that he expects the office to complete somewhat

more than 40 files per month (which equates to completion of the initial group in

approximately 3 years). This is slightly faster than the estimate in defendant’s status

statement of 3.5 years, but the Court remains perplexed as to how defendant’s estimate could

be so high given its own underlying data.

Consequently, the Court hereby ORDERS that defendant electronically file and serve

the following documents no later than August 14, 2006:

1. A sworn declaration by the director of the Philadelphia Resource Center, or a

higher level official of the VA with supervisory authority over the PRC, attesting to the

number of staff, and their hours per year, devoted to the Nehmer CLL claims process. If this

is different than the twenty full-time staff members that has been represented to the Court, as

discussed above, a full explanation for the discrepancy shall be provided by the declarant,

with a separate submission by counsel.

2. A submission by counsel for defendant addressing the Court’s calculations

discussed above and providing a full explanation as to whether defendant agrees with these

calculations. Any disagreement with the calculations shall be explained completely and shall

be supported by sworn written testimony.

Defendant remains under court order to act with speed, diligence, and good faith, and

any actions to the contrary shall subject defendant to contempt proceedings and sanctions in

Case 3:86-cv-06160-WHA Document 373 Filed 08/04/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

accordance with the inherent authority of the Court. Furthermore, the in-court hearing set

during the telephonic conference for September 18, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. shall remain on

calendar. Following defendant’s submissions in response to this Order, the Court shall issue

a pre-hearing order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2006 ________________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:86-cv-06160-WHA Document 373 Filed 08/04/06 Page 4 of 4