No. 24-5802

Burford Earl Frederick v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2024-10-22
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: administrative-law constitutional-violation due-process equal-protection medical-examination veterans-rights
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment FifthAmendment
Latest Conference: 2025-02-21 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a serviceman's overlooked SHA medical exam at discharge constitutes a Grave Prejudicial Error violating Due Process under the Fifth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The SHA medical exam is required at discharge by the D.O.D. AND THE DEPARTMENT ofVeterans Affairs. When a serviceman is overtooked, would this be 8 Grave Prejudicial Error and a violation of . the Due Process under the Fifth Amendment? : o lf there is Spotiation of favorable evidence, how is “Benefit of the Doubt” under 38 U.S.C. 5107 a evenly balanced? ; mc : : ; : When the VA has proof of unemployability and denies a claim. Has the VA just violated the Veterans 14" Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, also the Due Process Rights under the Constitution? ~ : : Under 38 U.S.C. 5103A, When VA does not schedule an examination or hetp find missing records, could this be considered Frauduient Concealment? . . ' Cana Veteran use the Continuing Violation Doctrine, in an Equitable Estoppet claim with alleged : unconstitutional conduct and intentional infliction of emotional stress ? 1S it possible for 42 U.S.C, 1983, Equitable Estoppel and a Medical Malpractice Tort claim to be used —— in the same case ? ; ae i. ona ~DYAN panties appear inthe caption of the ease onthe cover page: ‘ a _ 7” oe a & [J /AMl parties do not appear ini the ea tion of the © seh onthe eivatsjabec” Miskin: oS oo «all

Docket Entries

2025-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2024-12-31
Petitioner complied with order of December 16, 2024.
2024-12-16
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until January 6, 2025, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2024-11-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2024.
2024-11-21
Waiver of right of respondent McDonough, Denis to respond filed.
2024-08-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 21, 2024)

Attorneys

Burford Earl Frederick
Burford Earl Frederick — Petitioner
Burford Earl Frederick — Petitioner
McDonough, Denis
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent