Shapira v. United States

Court of Claims

Shapira v. United States

229 Ct. Cl. 553, 1981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 540, 1981 WL 22056

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedOctober 30, 1981

DocketNo. 392-81C

StatusPublished

This text of 229 Ct. Cl. 553 (Shapira 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

Shapira v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 553, 1981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 540, 1981 WL 22056 (cc 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

This suit is for overtime pay allegedly earned at a Veterans Administration hospital in calendar years 1969, 1970, and 1971. Plaintiff filed a claim with the General Accounting Office (GAO) which finally denied it under date of July 3, 1977. Plaintiff petitioned in this court under date of June 22, 1981. Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, alleging expiration of the 6-year period of 28 U.S.C. § 2501 before action was brought. Plaintiff relies on her theory that resort to the GAO was a mandatory administrative remedy that kept her claim from accruing pending exhaustion of that remedy.

However, in this court in overtime cases resort to the GAO is held a permissive remedy that does not toll limitations. She could have sued here at the outset. [554]*554McQuown v. United States, 199 Ct.Cl. 858, 873 (1972), and cases cited.

Accordingly, on the motion and briefs, but without oral argument, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed.

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

This suit is for overtime pay allegedly earned at a Veterans Administration hospital in calendar years 1969, 1970, and 1971. Plaintiff filed a claim with the General Accounting Office (GAO) which finally denied it under date of July 3, 1977. Plaintiff petitioned in this court under date of June 22, 1981. Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, alleging expiration of the 6-year period of 28 U.S.C. § 2501 before action was brought. Plaintiff relies on her theory that resort to the GAO was a mandatory administrative remedy that kept her claim from accruing pending exhaustion of that remedy.

However, in this court in overtime cases resort to the GAO is held a permissive remedy that does not toll limitations. She could have sued here at the outset. [554]*554McQuown v. United States, 199 Ct.Cl. 858, 873 (1972), and cases cited.

Accordingly, on the motion and briefs, but without oral argument, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 Ct. Cl. 553, 1981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 540, 1981 WL 22056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shapira-v-united-states-cc-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack