38 U.S.C. § 511

Decisions of the Secretary; finality

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), the decision of the Secretary as to any such question shall be final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by any other official or by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.(b) The second sentence of subsection (a) does not apply to—(1) matters subject to section 502 of this title;(2) matters covered by sections 1975 and 1984 of this title;(3) matters arising under chapter 37 of this title; and(4) matters covered by chapter 72 of this title.(Added Pub. L. 102–83, § 2(a), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 388.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Prior section 511 was renumbered section 1511 of this title.

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 211(a) of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–83, § 2(a).

Court RulesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure

Writ of mandamus abolished in United States district courts, but relief available by appropriate action or motion, see rule 81, Title 28, Appendix, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 517 cases (155 in the last 5 years), 1929–2026 · 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 30× “We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to afford such relief because Congress, in its discretion, has elected to place judicial review of claims related to the provision of veterans' benefits beyond our reach and within the exclusive purview of the United States Court of Appeals…”

Broudy, Alice P. v. Mather, Susan H., 460 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir. 2006). · cites it 12× “The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims and made three arguments relevant here.”

William M. Hanlin v. United States, 214 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 21× “Hanlin’s claim for breach of an implied contract because the claim was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“Secretary”) pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 511 (a) (1994). Because the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over Mr.”

R. Edward Bates, Claimant-Appellant v. R. James Nicholson, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 398 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 13× “§ 7104 (a) (2000) (incorporating by reference, 38 U.S.C. § 511 (a)), and because the Secretary’s decision to cancel his accreditation under 38 U.”

Vets. for Common Sense v. Eric K. Shinseki, 644 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 16× “The district court con- cluded that 38 U.S.C. § 511 prevented it from reviewing delays in the adjudication of individual veterans’ claims, and “the issue of whether a veteran’s benefits claim adjudication has been substantially delayed will often hinge on specific facts of that…”

Stewart J. Smith v. United States, 7 F.4th 963 (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 10× “The district court concluded that its judicial review of his claims was precluded by the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (“VJRA”), 38 U.S.C. § 511 (a), which restricts judicial review of “questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects…”

Blue Water Navy Vietnam Vets. Ass'n v. McDonald, 830 F.3d 570 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 9× “They asked the district court to issue a declaratory judgment that the policy violated the APA and to order injunc-tive and mandamus relief to prevent the VA from denying the presumption of Agent Orange exposure to blue-water veterans.”

Kay Butler v. United States, 702 F.3d 749 (4th Cir. 2012). · cites it 6× “Butler moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that under 38 U.S.C. § 511 (“§ 511”) the district court was bound by decisions of law and fact made by the VA during the benefits claim adjudication and consequently the “Court does not have the authority or jurisdiction to…”

Thomas, Oscar v. Principi, Anthony, 394 F.3d 970 (D.C. Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “Among other things, the VA argued that Thomas’s FTCA claim was jurisdictionally barred by 38 U.S.C. § 511 , which prohibits district courts from reviewing “all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary [for Veterans Affairs] under a law that affects the…”

Gila River Indian Cmty. v. U.S. Dept. of Vets. Affairs, 899 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 11× “The panel held that § 511(a) of the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, 38 U.S.C. § 511 (a), barred the Community’s lawsuit.”

Peavey v. Holder, 657 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 5× “) In addition, Peavey challenges the constitutionality of 38 U.S.C. § 511 (a), 2 the statute limiting judicial review of decisions made by the VA Secretary.”

Smalls v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 300 (Fed. Cl. 2009). · cites it 8× “The Government argues that this court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case because plaintiffs claims are barred by the statute of limitations or, in the alternative, judicial review of the VA’s action regarding plaintiffs request to reopen is precluded by 38…”

Show all 517 citing cases →

— 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) — 5 cases

Mitchell Scates, Jr. v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs v. Kenneth B. Mason, Jr., Intervenor-Appellant, 282 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

John M. Harris, Jr. v. Denis McDonough (Vet. App. 2021).

Paul Cardoza v. Denis McDonough (Vet. App. 2024).

Miller v. United States (S.D.W. Va 2024).

Lauri Williams v. United States of Am. (E.D. Ark. 2026).

— 38 U.S.C. § 511(b)(4) — 1 case

Brown v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 451 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D. Mass. 2006).

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.