Opinion ID: 384949
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction over the nsli claim

Text: 61 The VA argues that it does not dispute de Magno's right to her insurance benefits; indeed, it protests that in fact she is receiving her benefits as each month her debt is reduced. Since a disagreement as to claim is required under section 784, it argues that the court therefore lacks jurisdiction. 62 This position suffers from a formalistic bent which is at odds both with the statute and the intent of Congress in providing for district court jurisdiction over insurance disputes. Furthermore, it confuses claims with defenses. All that is necessary to give a district court jurisdiction over a suit involving insurance benefits is for a claimant to notify the VA of his or her intention to claim insurance benefits and for the VA to refuse to pay the claim. The statute in no way limits jurisdiction to denials that are based on particular reasons. Here, de Magno wrote a letter objecting to the termination of her insurance benefits and demanding that they be resumed. The VA denied her claim, responding that they could not be resumed until her debt was satisfied. 63 The legislative history of the disagreement as to claim language indicates that Congress intended a claimant to have the same access to courts and judicial remedies as would exist were the NSLI policy issued by a private insurance company. The phrase was intended only to require that the plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies before turning to the courts for relief. According to the Senate Report, (i)t has for its purpose the establishment of a definite rule that before suit is brought a claimant must make a claim for insurance and prosecute his case on appeal through the appellate agencies of the bureau before he shall have the right to enter suit. S.Rep. No. 1128, 71st Cong., 2d Sess. 2-3 (1930). 64 We conclude that section 784 provides for jurisdiction over de Magno's claim to the extent that she seeks recovery of withheld NSLI benefits and resumption of her monthly insurance payments. 15 On its face, de Magno's complaint asserts a disagreement with the VA as to her claim to payment of insurance benefits, and she has pursued her claim through administrative channels. Section 784 requires no more. 65