Geraldine Durant v. United States of America, Veterans Administration and Donald Curtis, Acting Administrator

Eleventh Circuit

Geraldine Durant v. United States of America, Veterans Administration and Donald Curtis, Acting Administrator

749 F.2d 1554, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 27489

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 10, 1985

Docket83-3594

StatusPublished

This text of 749 F.2d 1554 (Geraldine Durant v. United States of America, Veterans Administration and Donald Curtis, Acting Administrator) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Geraldine Durant v. United States of America, Veterans Administration and Donald Curtis, Acting Administrator, 749 F.2d 1554, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 27489 (11th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

As in Hiljer v. Walters, 749 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir.1984), decided the same date, appellant’s attempt to escape the bar on judicial reviewability imposed by 38 U.S.C. § 211(a), by alleging deprivation of a property interest in the form of the benefits claimed, is unavailing.

Appellant also charges that the regulations of the VA concerning the time for filing a claim are unconstitutional. Assuming that the district court had jurisdiction to entertain this claim, see Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974), the principal basis for the constitutional claim is that it operated to deprive of benefits one who does not timely file; this is not enough. Also, the regulation is not arbitrary or unreasonable.

*1555 Appellant asserts that the VA regulations at issue, 28 C.F.R. §§ 3.155(a), 3.109(b), are inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the statutory provisions concerning payment of veterans benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 3003(b). The regulations do not diminish the VA’s responsibility to request further information from claimants and to help claimants complete their claims. The one-year period for submitting a formal claim is entirely consistent with Congress’s direction that one year should be allowed for submission of further evidence on incomplete applications.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

As in Hiljer v. Walters, 749 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir.1984), decided the same date, appellant’s attempt to escape the bar on judicial reviewability imposed by 38 U.S.C. § 211(a), by alleging deprivation of a property interest in the form of the benefits claimed, is unavailing.

Appellant also charges that the regulations of the VA concerning the time for filing a claim are unconstitutional. Assuming that the district court had jurisdiction to entertain this claim, see Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974), the principal basis for the constitutional claim is that it operated to deprive of benefits one who does not timely file; this is not enough. Also, the regulation is not arbitrary or unreasonable.

*1555 Appellant asserts that the VA regulations at issue, 28 C.F.R. §§ 3.155(a), 3.109(b), are inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the statutory provisions concerning payment of veterans benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 3003(b). The regulations do not diminish the VA’s responsibility to request further information from claimants and to help claimants complete their claims. The one-year period for submitting a formal claim is entirely consistent with Congress’s direction that one year should be allowed for submission of further evidence on incomplete applications.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

749 F.2d 1554, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 27489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geraldine-durant-v-united-states-of-america-veterans-administration-and-ca11-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack