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

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided July 30, 1990·No. 90-5049·Published·Cited by 70 cases

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.

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

909 F.2d 1470 (Gilbert L. MARCUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related