Asked about 1 year ago - San Francisco, CA
FlagI read recently that the 9th Circuit dismissed a case involving Veterans benefits because they said the state court "lacks jurisdiction over veterans benefits." What does that mean? To lack jurisdiction over the benefits? Is that like saying the state court can never be used to get you veterans benefits because state courts do not have jurisdiction?
Yes, not only state courts but any court other than the Veterans Court and the Federal Circuit.
The case of Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinsek arose out of a complaint by two veterans groups that the VA delayed the provision of mental health care and the adjudication of service-connected disability claims of veterans.
Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled en banc that it lacked jurisdiction because Congress expressly disqualified it from hearing cases related to VA benefits. Rather, Congress conferred exclusive jurisdiction over such claims to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The state court cannot be used to make any determination on benefit disputes with the military. It doesn't not mean that the state court cannot make determination on disputes over benefits once paid. Congress allows state courts to garnish benefits paid. The state can't make a determination about how much is owed the beneficiary but they can determine how much they get to keep.
Don't speak legalese? We define thousands of terms in plain English.
Browse our legal dictionary