Lloyd Goings v. United States , 287 F. App'x 543 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-1620
    ___________
    Lloyd Goings, an individual,             *
    *
    Appellant,                  * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                 * District of South Dakota.
    *
    United States of America,                * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 19, 2008
    Filed: July 18, 2008
    ___________
    Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Lloyd Goings appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment
    in his Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) lawsuit.
    In his verified complaint, Goings, a Vietnam veteran, alleged that the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) had lost his medical records from 1970 through
    1992, thereby causing his claim for social security disability insurance benefits to be
    denied. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States,
    explaining, inter alia, that it could not determine whether the administrative law judge
    (ALJ) had denied Goings disability benefits due to the absence of his medical records.
    After careful review, we conclude that the district court lacked subject matter
    jurisdiction to hear Goings’s FTCA claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (no findings of fact
    or decision of Commissioner of Social Security shall be reviewed by any person,
    tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided; no action against United
    States shall be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 to recover on any claim arising under
    this subchapter); cf. Shalala v. Ill. Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 
    529 U.S. 1
    , 5, 10
    (2000) (concluding that § 405(h) barred federal-question jurisdiction in case
    challenging Medicare-related regulations; § 405(h) purports to make exclusive judicial
    review method set forth in statute). We hold that Goings’s claim was precluded by
    section 405(h) because it required the district court to review the ALJ’s decision and
    determine whether the absence of his medical records affected the outcome. Cf. Rosen
    v. Walters, 
    719 F.2d 1422
    , 1422-25 (9th Cir. 1983) (affirming dismissal of veteran’s
    action under Privacy Act for damages stemming from denial of VA disability benefits;
    veteran alleged that VA or some other agency destroyed his medical records, thereby
    making it impossible to show that ailment was service-related; court concluded that
    claim would require type of judicial review over VA decisions that was precluded by
    statute because it would involve review of prior adverse VA decision to determine
    whether absence of evidence affected result, and, if so, court must then act as VA
    itself in order to determine what correct award would have been); Quarles v. United
    States, 
    731 F. Supp. 428
    , 429, 431-32 (D. Kan. 1990) (applying rationale of Rosen and
    dismissing FTCA claim brought by veteran; veteran alleged that United States
    negligently destroyed his medical records, which prevented him from proving
    illnesses were service-related for purposes of disability benefits from VA).
    Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment, and we
    remand the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack
    of subject matter jurisdiction. In addition, Goings’s pending motions are denied.
    ___________________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1620

Citation Numbers: 287 F. App'x 543

Judges: Bye, Smith, Benton

Filed Date: 7/18/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024