GEORGE PAPPANIKOLOAOU, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the dismissal of the pro se complaint against the V.A. was proper because the claims were either barred by statute or failed to state a valid claim under New York law.
Appellant filed a pro se complaint against the V.A. seeking disability benefits and damages for various alleged wrongs, including denial of due proces…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Emotional Distress Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
George Pappanikoloaou appeals from the dismissal of his pro se complaint against the Administrator of the Veterans Administration (“V.A.”). We hold that Judge Bramwell’s dismissal was proper. Appellant’s complaint arises out of various unsuccessful claims he has filed with the V.A. seeking disability benefits. Read liberally, the complaint seeks damages for a variety of alleged wrongs. To the extent it seeks the benefits which have been claimed and denied, it fails to state a valid claim for relief. An applicant for benefits may not challenge the V.A.’s disposition of his claim, because the Administrator’s decisions of law or fact concerning the administration of benefits are not subject to judicial review. 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) (1982).
To the extent the complaint seeks damages for the V.A.’s denial of due process in handling his claim, we agree with those circuits that have held that one may not circumvent § 211(a) by seeking damages on a constitutional claim arising out of a denial of benefits. See Anderson v. Veterans Administration, 559 F. 2d 935 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam); Ross v. United States, 462 F. 2d 618 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 984, 93 S.Ct. 326, 34 L.Ed.2d 249 (1972); Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F. 2d 122 (1st Cir.1964) (per curiam), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002, 85 S.Ct. 723, 13 L.Ed.2d 703 (1965).
To the extent the complaint seeks damages for emotional distress resulting from the V.A.’s negligence or recklessness, it fails to state a valid claim under New York law. See Garland v. Herrin, 724 F. 2d 16, 19 (2d Cir.1983).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Traynor v. Walters, 791 F.2d 226 (2d Cir. 1986)
-
In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation. Philip J. Aguiar v. United States, 818 F.2d 194 (2d Cir. 1987)
-
Cole v. United States, 861 F.2d 1261 (11th Cir. 1988)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carter v. United States, 409 U.S. 984 (U.S. 1972)
- Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122 (1st Cir. 1964)
- Anderson v. Veterans Admin., 559 F.2d 935 (5th Cir. 1977)
- Lorent v. Tozer, 379 U.S. 1002 (U.S. 1965)
- Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1972)
- Milliken v. Gleason, 379 U.S. 1002 (U.S. 1965)
- Garland v. Herrin, 724 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1983)