Gilbert L. MARCUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee

Federal Circuit

Gilbert L. MARCUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee

909 F.2d 1470, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 12549, 1990 WL 106801

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedJuly 30, 1990

Docket90-5049

StatusPublished

Cited by70 cases

This text of 909 F.2d 1470 (Gilbert L. MARCUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gilbert L. MARCUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, 909 F.2d 1470, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 12549, 1990 WL 106801 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

NIES, Chief Judge.

Gilbert L. Marcus appeals from the Claims Court’s order, Marcus v. United States, No. 688-89 C (December 20, 1989) (Bruggink, J.), dismissing his claim for lack of jurisdiction. Although entitled a “Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Respondum”, appellant seeks a reversal of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying an award of social security disability benefits. Construing appellant’s pleading in a light most favorable to him, that is, as a claim for social security disability benefits, we hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (1988), over claims to social security benefits, even considering appellant’s assertions that he is entitled to relief under the Constitution. See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756-767, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 2462-2467, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975); (42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and (h) (1982) require that action for social security benefits must be brought in district court); cf. Alabama Hospital Ass’n v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 176, 656 F.2d 606 (1981). The judgment of the Claims Court is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.

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

NIES, Chief Judge.

Gilbert L. Marcus appeals from the Claims Court’s order, Marcus v. United States, No. 688-89 C (December 20, 1989) (Bruggink, J.), dismissing his claim for lack of jurisdiction. Although entitled a “Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Respondum”, appellant seeks a reversal of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying an award of social security disability benefits. Construing appellant’s pleading in a light most favorable to him, that is, as a claim for social security disability benefits, we hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (1988), over claims to social security benefits, even considering appellant’s assertions that he is entitled to relief under the Constitution. See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756-767, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 2462-2467, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975); (42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and (h) (1982) require that action for social security benefits must be brought in district court); cf. Alabama Hospital Ass’n v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 176, 656 F.2d 606 (1981). The judgment of the Claims Court is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

909 F.2d 1470, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 12549, 1990 WL 106801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilbert-l-marcus-plaintiff-appellant-v-the-united-states-cafc-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack