B. & S. Lenox Trade School, Inc. v. United States

145 Ct. Cl. 723, 1959 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 113, 1959 WL 7615
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMay 6, 1959
DocketNo. 61-56
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 145 Ct. Cl. 723 (B. & S. Lenox Trade School, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
B. & S. Lenox Trade School, Inc. v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 723, 1959 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 113, 1959 WL 7615 (cc 1959).

Opinion

Jones, Chief Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, a trade school, seeks payment for training veterans at a tuition rate higher than was received from the Veterans Administration.

The training was given under the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944,58 Stat. 284, Public Law 346,78th Congress. The two claims cover the periods from February 15,1951, to April 27,1954.

The plaintiff school began operations in 1949 and devoted its efforts almost exclusively to the training of veterans.

From June 1, 1949, to February 14, 1950, plaintiff gave instructions to veterans in shoe repairing at a contract rate of $0.70 per student hour. When this contract expired plaintiff submitted cost data pursuant to change 4 of the [725]*725regulations, which is set out in finding 6 and which had been effective since July 1, 1948. Change 4 required that fair and reasonable tuition rates be predicated upon detailed financial cost data to be submitted by schools of this type. This data, which covered the period from February 21,1949, to October 31,1949, was submitted as a basis for a new contract for the period of one year beginning February 15,1950.

The Veterans Administration analyzed the cost data and determined that the fair and reasonable rate for the course was $0.4959 per hoiir. However, since the school had been continuing to give instruction since the expiration of the previous contract on February 14, 1950, the Veterans Administration decided to pay the $0.70 rate for the period February 15 to May 14, 1950, and the $0.4959 rate for the remaining portion of the contract year.

Upon the expiration of the contract mentioned in the preceding paragraph a new contract was signed for the year beginning February 15, 1951. The plaintiff sought to have the same rate for the new contract, that is $0.70 for the first three months and $0.4959 for the balance of the year. The Veterans Administration found that the $0.4959 rate, being the rate established by the most recent contract, was the school’s customary cost of tuition and should apply for the entire year. The same rate was continued in subsequent contracts until February 14,1954.

The contract for the year beginning February 15, 1951, stipulated that it should be without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to appeal to the Veterans’ Education Appeals Board on the question of existing customary costs or a fair and reasonable rate, and the contract should be subject to revision by the board pursuant to statute and regulations.

Section 2 of Public Law 610, 64 Stat. 336, 338, provides in substance that in any case in which one or more contracts had been entered into in two successive years the rate established by the most recent contract should be considered the customary cost of tuition, and that if the Administrator should find that any institution had no customary cost of tuition he should fix a fair and reasonable rate of payment for tuition fees and other charges for the courses offered by such institution. It further provides that any educational [726]*726or trades institution which is dissatisfied with such a determination or with any other action of the Administrator made under the Veterans’ Education and Training Amendments of I960 should upon application be entitled to a review by a board to be known as the Veterans’ Education Appeals Board consisting of three members appointed by the President, and that the decision of such board with respect to all matters should constitute the final administrative determination. It was further provided that in no event should the board fix a rate of payment in excess of the amount allowable under the Servicemen’s ^Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended.

Pursuant to the provisions of the above section, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Veterans’ Education Appeals Board for a review of the frozen rate determination of the Veterans Administration. It was the contention of plaintiff that the hourly rates should be $0.70 for the first three months and the $0.4959 rate for the remaining portion of the year ending February 14,1952. It requested the board to so find. The board was not requested to make a determination as to whether either of the rates mentioned was fair and reasonable, and no evidence concerning this question was offered at the hearing before the board by either party.

The board referred the matter to a hearing examiner who after a hearing and submission of briefs made an initial decision that the $0.70 rate for the first three months and the $0.4959 rate for the balance of the year was applicant’s customary cost of tuition.

The Administrator of Veterans Affairs took exception to this initial decision and requested a review by the Veterans’ Education Appeals Board. That board, on November 8, 1952, held that under Public Law 610 the tuition rate of $0.4959 per student hour is to be considered the customary cost of tuition for the applicant’s course in shoe repairing, and that it is the rate to which the applicant is entitled for the training of veterans in said course during the year beginning February 15,1951.

The plaintiff filed suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 22, 1954, requesting a review of the decision of the Veterans’ Education Appeals Board. This suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [727]*727The plaintiff then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 25, 1954. This suit also was dismissed, upon motion of the defendant, for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff asserts in this suit that either it should have the $0.70 rate for the first three months of the year and $0,495.9 for the remaining portion, or that it should have the $0.70 per hour rate as a fair and reasonable tuition for the entire year.

There is not the slightest doubt that in the circiunstances as shown by the record in this case it was the duty of the Veterans Administration to fix a fair and reasonable rate based on cost data pursuant to the statute and regulations. The rate of $0.4959 per hour was determined by the Veterans Administration to be a fair and reasonable rate following its examination and analysis of the statement of costs which was submitted by plaintiff for the period February 21,1949, to October 31, 1949. Plaintiff was not required to and did not voluntarily submit a new statement of costs for any subsequent period.

The evidence does not disclose the cost data or estimates which were the basis of the $0.70 per hour rate provided in the contract for the period February 15, 1950, to May 14, 1950.

The trial commissioner who heard the evidence in this case found that the $0.4959 per student hour determined by the Veterans Administration was a fair and reasonable rate of payment for the plaintiff’s course in shoe repairing for all periods subsequent to May 14,1950. He also found that such determination was based on substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. We adopt that finding.

Defendant submits that plaintiff may not in this court raise the question of reasonableness of the rates fixed by the Veterans Administration since it failed to exhaust its administrative remedy by appealing that phase of the decision to the Veterans’ Education Appeals Board. In view of the definite finding by the Veterans Administration and by the trial commissioner’s additional finding, it is unnecessary to pass upon that additional defense. Feener Technical Schools v. United

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
145 Ct. Cl. 723, 1959 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 113, 1959 WL 7615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-s-lenox-trade-school-inc-v-united-states-cc-1959.