No. 24-452

Louis Frantzis v. Todd B. Hunter, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2024-10-22
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-law board-of-veterans-appeals credibility-determination due-process hearing-procedure veterans-benefits
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity ERISA DueProcess Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-01-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a Board member who conducts a veterans benefits hearing must be the same Board member who makes the credibility determination in the claim

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED “The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). Therefore, where Congress has conditioned the grant of benefits on “an assessment of the recipient’s credibility,” Congress also generally requires the agency to conduct a hearing that permits “personal contact between the recipient and the person who decides his case.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979). “The one who decides must hear.” Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 481 (1936). Federal law has long granted veterans the right to an administrative hearing regarding a benefits claim. See, e.g., 38 U.S.C. § 4002 (1958); 38 U.S.C. § 7113(b). Veterans who exercise that right can speak directly to a member of the Board of Veterans Appeals. See 38 U.S.C. § 7107(c). The credibility determinations that the Board makes based on hearing testimony are final; they cannot be disputed in later proceedings before the Court of Veterans Appeals or in the Federal Circuit. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7261(a)(4), 7292(a). The question presented is whether, at least where the Board’s denial of a veteran’s claim is grounded in a credibility determination, the governing federal statutes or the Due Process Clause require that the Board member who conducts the hearing must be the same Board member who makes a credibility determination regarding the veteran’s testimony. (i)

Docket Entries

2025-01-27
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2025.
2025-01-08
Reply of Louis Frantzis submitted.
2025-01-08
2024-12-23
Brief of McDonough, Denis in opposition submitted.
2024-12-23
Brief of respondent McDonough, Denis in opposition filed.
2024-12-23
Brief of respondent Denis McDonough in opposition filed.
2024-11-21
2024-11-21
Brief amicus curiae of the National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium filed.
2024-11-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 23, 2024.
2024-11-04
Motion of McDonough, Denis for an extension of time submitted.
2024-11-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 21, 2024 to December 23, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-10-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 21, 2024)
2024-08-27
Application (24A195) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until October 18, 2024.
2024-08-20
Application (24A195) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 2, 2024 to October 18, 2024, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Federal Circuit Bar Association
William Gary James IISterling US LLP, Amicus
William Gary James IISterling US LLP, Amicus
Louis Frantzis
Jo-Ann Tamila SagarHogan Lovells US LLP, Petitioner
Jo-Ann Tamila SagarHogan Lovells US LLP, Petitioner
McDonough, Denis
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent
The National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium
Yelena DuterteUniversity of Illinois Chicago School of Law, Amicus
Yelena DuterteUniversity of Illinois Chicago School of Law, Amicus