Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/298-f-3d-1350-603350194
Timestamp: 2020-05-26 07:38:50
Document Index: 657110998

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 502', '§ 502', '§ 502', '§ 502', '§ 7252', '§ 7292', '§ 502', '§ 7292', '§ 502', '§ 502', '§ 502', '§ 7292']

298 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2002), 01-7107, Nyeholt v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 603350194
Docket Nº: 01-7107.
Party Name: Thomas M. NYEHOLT, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.
298 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
Thomas M. NYEHOLT, Petitioner,
No. 01-7107.
For an indefinite period from the date of hospital admission for transplant surgery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Minimum. . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain Nyeholt's petition under 38 U.S.C. § 502. Section 502 provides in relevant part that:
An action of the Secretary to which section 552(a)(1) or 553 of title 5 (or both) refers (other than an action relating to the adoption or revision of the schedule of ratings for disabilities adopted under section 1155 of this title) is subject to judicial review. Such review shall be in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5 and may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. . . .
Nyeholt argues that we have jurisdiction to hear his void-for-vagueness challenge to DC 7351 because, although § 502 excludes "actions relating to the . . . schedule of ratings" from its grant of jurisdiction, it does not specifically preclude constitutional challenges from being brought under that provision. Nyeholt argues that under the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974), which addressed an earlier statute delineating the scope of review of a decision of the DVA, "clear and convincing evidence" is needed in order to overcome the presumption that judicial review is available for constitutional challenges to the schedule of ratings. Nyeholt contends that neither the language of § 502 nor its legislative history provides such evidence, and further argues that the only relevant legislative history addressing the issue, a statement in a report issued by the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, is directly to the contrary.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs responds that the statutory scheme created by the text and legislative history of § 502, when read in conjunction with those of 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a)1 and 38 U.S.C. § 7292(b)2 , clearly establishes that Congress has foreclosed all judicial review of matters pertaining to the rating schedule and thus overcomes the presumption that judicial review of constitutional challenges is available. The Secretary also argues that there is no indication in § 502 that Congress intended to exempt constitutional challenges from its blanket prohibition on judicial review, contrary to the express provision for review of constitutional challenges in §§ 7292(c) and (d)(1).3 The Secretary further contends that because the
House Veterans' Affairs Committee statement relied upon by Nyeholt appears nowhere in the corresponding Senate report, there is no indication that the full Congress adopted that statement. Finally, the Secretary argues that Nyeholt's reliance on Johnson is misplaced because that case addressed a different jurisdictional statute and involved a challenge to a legislative enactment, rather than an administrative enactment such as DC 7351.
We conclude that we have jurisdiction to review constitutional challenges to the schedule of ratings under § 502. Only upon a showing of "clear and convincing evidence" of congressional intent may access to judicial review be restricted. Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 141, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). The evidence relied upon by the Secretary in arguing that we lack jurisdiction under § 502 over constitutional challenges relating to the schedule of ratings falls short of that standard.
Although § 502 plainly excepts from appealability "actions relating to the . . . schedule of ratings" from its jurisdictional grant, nowhere in the text of that provision are constitutional challenges mentioned. The Secretary acknowledges that fact, but argues that the express provision for review of constitutional challenges in 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c) and (d)(1), and the absence of any corresponding reference...
241 N.W. 229 (Mich. 1932), 67, Behr v. Baker