Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HESTER v. MELIDOSIAN

December 12, 1966

James E. HESTER
v.
S. W. MELIDOSIAN, Manager, Veterans Administration Center, Philadelphia, Penna.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: LORD, III

 Plaintiff is currently pursuing administrative remedies within the Veterans' Administration ("V.A.") in an effort to obtain disability compensation benefits which he claims are due him. He has brought this suit under the general mandamus provisions of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, to obtain documents and records from the V.A.'s files which he says he needs to prosecute his claim. Defendant has moved to dismiss under F.R.Civ.P. 12(b). *fn1" However, since defendant has filed an affidavit in support of his motion, we will treat it as one for summary judgment under F.R.Civ.P. 56.

 It appears from the allegations of the complaint and the affidavit filed of record on behalf of the defendant that the Administrator has furnished to plaintiff's counsel certain documents in the V.A.'s files but has refused to transmit "copies of official ratings and correspondence with elements of the Veterans' Administration, other government agencies, or persons other than Mr. Hester." Plaintiff asserts that under Section 3301(1) of Title 38 U.S.C. he is entitled to any and all documents that appear or that exist in his V.A. file. That section provides:

 
"All files, records, reports, and other papers and documents pertaining to any claim under any of the laws administered by the Veterans' Administration shall be confidential and privileged, and no disclosure thereof shall be made except as follows:
 
(1) To a claimant or his duly authorized agent or representative as to matters concerning himself alone when, in the judgment of the Administrator, such disclosure would not be injurious to the physical or mental health of the claimant. * * *"

 The V.A. does not suggest that complete disclosure was refused because it would be injurious to plaintiff's physical or mental health.

 Thus, the precise question presented is: absent a determination by the Administrator that disclosure would be injurious to the veteran's physical or mental health, is the claimant entitled to see his complete V.A. file as a matter of right? Of course, if disclosure is left to the discretion of the Administrator, plaintiff cannot succeed, for mandamus will only lie to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and cannot be used to regulate the exercise of discretion. Whittier v. Emmet, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 191, 281 F.2d 24 (1960), cert. den. 364 U.S. 935, 81 S. Ct. 380, 5 L. Ed. 2d 367 (1961); Smith v. United States, 333 F.2d 70 (C.A.10, 1966).

 We have found no case deciding the exact question posed. But there are nonetheless clear guidelines. Since November 1, 1948 there has been in force a Veterans' Administration Regulation governing the release of information to a veteran:

 
"Information may be disclosed to a veteran * * * as to matters concerning himself alone when such disclosure would not be injurious to the physical or mental health of the person on whose behalf the information is sought." (38 C.F.R. § 1.503).

 Undoubtedly, the Regulation speaks in permissive, and not mandatory terms.

 The present § 3301(1) of Title 38, upon which plaintiff relies, is a reenactment of § 3201(1) of Title 38, 1952 Ed., Supp. V. The House Report by Congressman Teague (85th Cong.2d Session, Report No. 1298) states that the Act of September 2, 1958 (the present codification) "is basically a restatement of existing law." Thus, with a longstanding administrative construction extant, which had been given wide dissemination in the Code of Federal Regulations, Congress chose in 1958 to reenact without change its previous legislation on the subject. "Under the established rule Congress must be taken to have approved the administrative construction and thereby to have given it the force of law." Helvering v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 306 U.S. 110, 115, 59 S. Ct. 423, 426, 83 L. Ed. 536 (1939). See Haggar Co. v. Helvering, 308 U.S. 389, 60 S. Ct. 337, 84 L. Ed. 340 (1940); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Haines, 104 F.2d 854 (C.A.3, 1939); Flowers v. United States, 230 F. Supp. 747 (W.D.Okl.1964).

 Quite clearly, the Regulation is discretionary and permissive by its terms. Equally clearly, by its re-enactment without change from previous legislation, Congress adopted as law the administrative interpretation. It follows that § 3301(1) is not mandatory; rather, disclosure under its provisions rests within the discretion of the Administrator. Mandamus, then, will not lie to control the exercise of that discretion.

 The conclusion we have reached is consonant with what appears to be the basic Congressional philosophy in dealing with veterans' benefits. The entire statutory scheme manifests an intention to repose in the Administrator wide powers of discretion, reaching their apex in § 211 of Title 38:

 
"* * * [The] decisions of the Administrator on any question of law or fact concerning a claim for benefits or payments under any law administered by the Veterans' Administration shall be final and conclusive and no other official or any court of the United ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.