U.S. Code » Title 38 » Part PART II— GENERAL BENEFITS › Chapter CHAPTER 17— HOSPITAL, NURSING HOME, DOMICILIARY, AND MEDICAL CARE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— HOSPITAL, NURSING HOME, OR DOMICILIARY CARE AND MEDICAL TREATMENT › Subtitle “subtitle a— veterans crisis line training and quality management

38 U.S.C. § 211

STAFF TRAINING.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)Review of Training for Veterans Crisis Line Call Responders.—“(1)In general.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall enter into an agreement with an organization outside the Department of Veterans Affairs to review the training for Veterans Crisis Line call responders on assisting callers in crisis.“(2)Completion of review.—The review conducted under paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 29, 2022].“(3)Elements of review.—The review conducted under paragraph (1) shall consist of a review of the training provided by the Department on subjects including risk assessment, lethal means assessment, substance use and overdose risk assessment, safety planning, referrals to care, supervisory consultation, and emergency dispatch.“(4)Update of training.—If any deficiencies in the training for Veterans Crisis Line call responders are found pursuant to the review under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall update such training and associated standards of practice to correct those deficiencies not later than one year after the completion of the review.“(b)Retraining Guidelines for Veterans Crisis Line Call Responders.—“(1)In general.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop guidelines on retraining and quality management for when a Veterans Crisis Line call responder has an adverse event or when a quality review check by a supervisor of such a call responder denotes that the call responder needs improvement.“(2)Elements of guidelines.—The guidelines developed under paragraph (1) shall specify the subjects and quantity of retraining recommended and how supervisors should implement increased use of silent monitoring or other performance review mechanisms.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 346 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: Vets. for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vets. for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 12× “2d at 1500 (quoting Note, Judicial Review of Allegedly Ultra Vires Actions of the Veterans' Administration: Does 38 U.S.C. § 211 (a) Preclude Review?, 55 Fordham L.”
Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535 (1988). · cites it 6× “The District Court held that it was not foreclosed from exercising jurisdiction over the case by 38 U. S. C. § 211 (a), which bars judicial review of "the decisions of the Administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans' Administration…”
Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974). · cites it 6× “[4] Appellants moved to dismiss the action on the *365 ground, among others, that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because of 38 U. S. C. § 211 (a) which prohibits judicial review of decisions of the Administrator.”
Calvin Rosen v. Harry N. Walters, Dir. of the Vets. Admin., & the Vets. Admin., 719 F.2d 1422 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 8× “He brought this action seeking a declaration that 38 U.S.C. § 211 (a), which precludes review of VA disability benefits decisions, is unconstitutional, and that he is entitled to damages under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.”
Walters v. Nat'l Assn. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305 (1985). · cites it 4× “38 U. S. C. § 211 (a); Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.”
Isobel Moore v. Donald E. Johnson, 582 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1978). · cites it 11× “The principal statutes are 38 U.S.C. §§ 211 and 610 and the screen is derived from the Fifth Amendment.”
Constancia A. Vda De Daylo v. Adm'r of Vets.' Affairs, 501 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1974). · cites it 15× “The Administrator grounds his motion on certain veterans’ legislation, Section 8(a) and (b) of the Act of August 12, 1970, 38 U.S.C. §§ 211 (a) and 3111 (1970), 4 enacted after the final judgment became unappealable.”
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975). · cites it 4× “In that case we considered 38 U. S. C. § 211 (a), which provides: "[T]he decisions of the [Veterans'] Administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans' Administration providing benefits for veterans .”
Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987). · cites it 4× “B To support his contention that exclusive jurisdiction over veterans' disability benefits is vested in the Administrator, appellant next cites 38 U. S. C. § 211 (a). This statute provides: *629 "[D]ecisions of the Administrator on any question of law or fact under any law…”
R. Edward Bates, Claimant-Appellant v. R. James Nicholson, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 398 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “The predecessor to section 511(a), namely section 211(a), was originally enacted as two separate provisions that were consolidated in 1958, resulting in 38 U.S.C. § 211 (a). 5 This provision barred judicial *1363 review of the Administrator’s decisions “on any question of law or…”
Stephen Marozsan v. The United States of Am. & the Vets.' Admin., Defendants, 852 F.2d 1469 (7th Cir. 1988). · cites it 6× “The district court ruled that 38 U.S.C. § 211 (a) “bars a court from hearing and reviewing an action challenging a decision of the V.”
Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988). · cites it 2× “, at 367 (quoting 38 U. S. C. § 211 (a)). We concluded that this statute did not bar judicial review of a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute itself, since that was a challenge not to a decision of the Administrator but to a decision of Congress.”
Show all 346 citing cases →
— 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) — 8 cases
Constancia A. Vda De Daylo v. Adm'r of Vets.' Affairs, 501 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1974). “The Administrator grounds his motion on certain veterans’ legislation, Section 8(a) and (b) of the Act of August 12, 1970, 38 U.S.C. §§ 211 (a) and 3111 (1970), 4 enacted after the final judgment became unappealable.”
Stephen Marozsan v. The United States of Am. & the Vets.' Admin., Defendants, 852 F.2d 1469 (7th Cir. 1988). “The district court ruled that 38 U.S.C. § 211 (a) “bars a court from hearing and reviewing an action challenging a decision of the V.”
John T. Evans v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Sec'y of the Army, 835 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1988).
Jackson v. Cong. of the United States, 558 F. Supp. 1288 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
Di Silvestro v. United States, 268 F. Supp. 516 (E.D.N.Y 1966).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.