Opinion ID: 4707703
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the vjra

Text: Initially, the limitation on judicial review of VA benefits decisions was located in former 38 U.S.C. § 211(a). Section 211(a) precluded judicial review of the VA Administrator’s decisions under “any law administered by the [VA] providing benefits for veterans,” as follows: [T]he decisions of the Administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans’ Administration providing benefits for veterans and their dependents or survivors shall be final and conclusive and no other official or any court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such decision by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise. See 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) (1982) (emphasis added). Then, in 1988, the Supreme Court in Traynor v. Turnage held that a district court properly exercised jurisdiction over two veterans’ suits challenging the VA’s decision that they were ineligible for out-of-time educational-assistance benefits under the GI Bill. 485 U.S. 535, 538–39, 108 S. Ct. 1372, 1376–77 (1988). The GI Bill allowed veterans to obtain an extension of the 10-year eligibility period for educational assistance “if they were prevented from using their benefits earlier by ‘a physical or mental disability which was not the result of [their] own willful misconduct.’” Id. at 538, 108 S. Ct. at 1376 (quoting former 38 U.S.C. § 1661 (alteration in original)). The VA denied the veterans educational benefits, 23 USCA11 Case: 20-11365 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 24 of 58 determining their alcoholism disability was the result of their own willful misconduct. Id. Filing suit in federal court, the veterans claimed, inter alia, that the VA’s educational-benefits denial violated § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, which bars discrimination against handicapped individuals solely because of their handicap. Id. at 537, 539. In Traynor, the Supreme Court held that § 211(a) did not preclude judicial review of the VA’s educational-benefits decision. The Supreme Court reasoned that, while the veterans’ entitlement to educational benefits under the GI Bill was a question of law or fact “under any law administered by the [VA],” the case also “involve[d] the issue whether the law sought to be administered is valid in light of a subsequent statute whose enforcement is not the exclusive domain of the Veterans’ Administration”— namely, the Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 543–45, 108 S. Ct. at 1379–80.
In response to Traynor and other decisions by lower courts, Congress amended § 211 via the VJRA, and the relevant provision was later relocated to § 511(a). See Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 101, 102 Stat. 4105, 4105 (1988); Dep’t of Veterans Affairs Codification Act, Pub. L. No. 102-83, § 2, 105 Stat. 378, 388–89 (1991). The limitation on judicial review of benefits decisions, located in § 511(a), now reads: 24 USCA11 Case: 20-11365 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 25 of 58 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. . . . [T]he 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. 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) (emphasis added).7 Section 511(a) does two things. First, “once the Secretary has been asked to make a decision in a particular case” (e.g., whether a veteran is eligible for or entitled to benefits), it “imposes a duty on the Secretary to decide all questions of fact and law necessary to a decision in that case.” See Hanlin v. United States, 214 F.3d 1319, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). Second, it precludes judicial review of those decisions. The House Report on the VJRA gave examples of “questions of law and fact” that might be “necessary to a decision by the Secretary” in a benefits case apart from the substantive benefits decision itself. The Report explained that where a veteran alleges, for example, “that a statute is unconstitutional, that VA procedure deprives him or her of due process of law, or that a VA regulation is inconsistent with a later-enacted statute,” the Secretary “must take a position with respect to such a contention if it is necessary to a decision in a case.” H.R. Rep. 7 A VA regulation defines a “benefit” to include “any payment, service, commodity, function, or status, entitlement to which is determined under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs pertaining to veterans and their dependents and survivors.” 38
25 USCA11 Case: 20-11365 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 26 of 58 No. 100-963, at 27 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5782, 5809. By including “necessary to a decision,” § 511(a) requires the Secretary not only to make a substantive benefits determination, but also to decide all questions of law or fact that bear on that benefits determination. In turn, the Secretary’s decision on such “necessary” questions is not subject to outside judicial review. Instead, a veteran’s only avenue for review of those questions is the VA’s administrative appeals process.8 Next, we review how our Court and other circuits have interpreted § 511(a). 8 Under this process, a veteran may appeal a decision of the Secretary to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the “Board”), whose ruling becomes the final decision of the Secretary. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). Decisions of the Board may then be reviewed exclusively by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, an Article I court established by the VJRA. Id. §§ 7251, 7252(a), 7266(a). Decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims are in turn appealable only to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and only as to certain legal issues relied upon by the Article I court. Id. § 7292(a), (c). The Federal Circuit’s judgment is subject to certiorari review by the Supreme Court. Id. § 7292(c). This appeal process is kicked off when the Secretary, “on a timely basis, provide[s] to the claimant (and to the claimant’s representative) notice” of a decision “under section 511 . . . affecting the provision of benefits to a claimant.” Id. § 5104(a). Such notice “shall include an explanation of the procedure for obtaining review of the decision.” Id. A veteran initiates an appeal of the Secretary’s decision by timely filing a “Notice of Disagreement” with the Board “on any issue or issues for which the VA provided notice of a decision under 38 U.S.C. § 5104.” 38 C.F.R. § 20.4(a)(1). A comprehensive review of the history of the VJRA and the administrative appeals process it created can be found in the Ninth Circuit’s thorough en banc opinion in Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1020–23 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 26 USCA11 Case: 20-11365 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 27 of 58