Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_86-cv-06160/USCOURTS-cand-3_86-cv-06160-6/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEVERLY NEHMER, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendant.

NO. C86-6160 TEH 

ORDER RE CLL CLAIMS

PROCEDURE

On February 12, 2007, the Court issued an Order Mandating CLL Claims Procedure

Status Report. In response, defendant United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”)

filed a status report on February 20, 2007, and plaintiffs filed a response on February 27,

2007. As context, defendant had previously reported that the Philadelphia Resource Center

(“PRC”) had increased its processing volume to a rate of 360 Nehmer-related CLL draft

decisions in October 2006. See Defendant’s Response to Court Order, filed October 31,

2006, at 2:11. Upon receipt of the VA’s February 20th status report, the Court was distressed

to learn that the PRC’s claims processing rate plummeted in December 2006 to a mere 54

draft decisions, and that the rate remained below an acceptable level (139 draft decisions) in

January as well. These figures are insufficient on their face, especially given the importance

of this process which the Court previously has expressed on numerous occasions. 

Case 3:86-cv-06160-WHA Document 404 Filed 03/29/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

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

Defendant provides no adequate explanation, stating only that the period in question

was the “holiday period,” with employees taking increased vacations and using excess leave

time prior to the end of the government’s leave year on January 7, 2007. Defendant’s

counsel had previously explained to the Court (during a telephonic conference on December

5, 2006) that a less drastic drop in the processing rate in November 2006 was within the

VA’s normal anticipation of a “little degradation in throughput” during a month with

significant holiday time. But a six-fold “degradation” can hardly be described as little, and is

more akin to utter disintegration – albeit perhaps temporary – of the claims-processing

procedure. In any event the Court views it as a blatant violation of its prior orders and the

prior representations made by defendant. 

Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that plaintiffs did not even address the drop in the

processing rate at the PRC in their February 27 response. Due to this apparent acquiescence,

the Court will refrain at this time from pursuing its original intention of issuing a sua sponte

Order to Show Cause for contempt. Instead, defendant is instructed to file a joint status

report identifying the following: 

1. The number of employees (in terms of full time equivalency) at the PRC and

the central office devoted to processing Nehmer-related CLL claims;

2. The rate of processing at both offices for the past two months;

3. The anticipated future rate of processing at both offices;

4. The anticipated date by which all claims shall be completed;

5. If there is any present backlog of claims at the central office, defendant’s plan

to promptly eliminate that backlog and to keep pace with the PRC processing rate.

6. The number and percentage of vacation or excess leave days taken by

employees in the PRC during the month of December 2006 in comparison with the norm for

that year (or any other benchmark that the VA can calculate without being overly burdened).

7. Whether the VA has a plan to make up for the decreased number of claims

processed in December 2006 and January 2007, and if so what that plan entails.

Case 3:86-cv-06160-WHA Document 404 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

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

The Status Report shall be supported by an appropriate declaration. Defendant shall

file its Status Report by April 10, 2007. Plaintiffs shall respond to defendant’s submission by

April 17, 2007. The Court will reserve decision as to how to proceed, and whether to

schedule another status conference, by phone or personal appearance, until after reviewing

the report and response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/28/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:86-cv-06160-WHA Document 404 Filed 03/29/07 Page 3 of 3