38 U.S.C. § 802

VETERANS CHOICE FUND.

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

“(a)In General.—There is established in the Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as the Veterans Choice Fund.“(b)Administration of Fund.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall administer the Veterans Choice Fund established by subsection (a).“(c)Use of Amounts.—“(1)In general.—Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), any amounts deposited in the Veteran Choice Fund shall be used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out section 101, including, subject to paragraph (2), any administrative requirements of such section.“(2)Amount for administrative requirements.—“(A)Limitation.—Except as provided by subparagraph (B), of the amounts deposited in the Veterans Choice Fund, not more than $300,000,000 may be used for administrative requirements to carry out section 101.“(B)Increase.—The Secretary may increase the amount set forth in subparagraph (A) with respect to the amounts used for administrative requirements if—“(i) the Secretary determines that the amount of such increase is necessary to carry out section 101;“(ii) the Secretary submits to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs and Appropriations of the Senate a report described in subparagraph (C); and“(iii) a period of 60 days has elapsed following the date on which the Secretary submits the report under clause (ii).“(C)Report.—A report described in this subparagraph is a report that contains the following:“(i) A notification of the amount of the increase that the Secretary determines necessary under subparagraph (B)(i).“(ii) The justifications for such increased amount.“(iii) The administrative requirements that the Secretary will carry out using such increased amount.“(3)Temporary authority for other uses.—“(A)Other non-department care.—In addition to the use of amounts described in paragraph (1), of the amounts deposited in the Veterans Choice Fund, not more than $3,348,500,000 may be used by the Secretary during the period described in subparagraph (C) for amounts obligated by the Secretary on or after May 1, 2015, to furnish health care to individuals pursuant to chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, at non-Department facilities, including pursuant to non-Department provider programs other than the program established by section 101.“(B)Hepatitis c.—Of the amount specified in subparagraph (A), not more than $500,000,000 may be used by the Secretary during the period described in subparagraph (C) for pharmaceutical expenses relating to the treatment of Hepatitis C.“(C)Period described.—The period described in this subparagraph is the period beginning on the date of the enactment of the VA Budget and Choice Improvement Act [July 31, 2015] and ending on October 1, 2015.“(D)Reports.—Not later than 14 days after the date of the enactment of the VA Budget and Choice Improvement Act, and not less frequently than once every 14-day period thereafter during the period described in subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report detailing—“(i) the amounts used by the Secretary pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B); and“(ii) an identification of such amounts listed by the non-Department provider program for which the amounts were used.“(E)Definitions.—In this paragraph:“(i) The term ‘appropriate congressional committees’ means— “(I) the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and “(II) the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.“(ii) The term ‘non-Department facilities’ has the meaning given that term in section 1701 of title 38, United States Code.“(iii) The term ‘non-Department provider program’ has the meaning given that term in section 4002(d) of the VA Budget and Choice Improvement Act [Pub. L. 114–41, 129 Stat. 462].“(4)Permanent authority for other uses.—Beginning on March 1, 2019, amounts remaining in the Veterans Choice Fund may be used to furnish hospital care, medical services, and extended care services to individuals pursuant to chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, at non-Department facilities, including pursuant to non-Department provider programs other than the program established by section 101. Such amounts shall be available in addition to amounts available in other appropriations accounts for such purposes.“(d)Appropriation and Deposit of Amounts.—“(1)In general.—There is authorized to be appropriated, and is appropriated, to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated $10,000,000,000 to be deposited in the Veterans Choice Fund established by subsection (a). Such funds shall be available for obligation or expenditure without fiscal year limitation, and only for the program created under section 101 (or for hospital care and medical services pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (c) of this section).“(2)Availability.—The amount appropriated under paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.“(e)Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that the Veterans Choice Fund is a supplement to but distinct from the Department of Veterans Affairs’ current and expected level of non-Department care currently part of Department’s medical care budget. Congress expects that the Department will maintain at least its existing obligations of non-Department care programs in addition to but distinct from the Veterans Choice Fund for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2017.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 224 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1944–2025 · leading case: Ramsey v. Ramsey, 535 P.2d 53 (Idaho 1975).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ramsey v. Ramsey, 535 P.2d 53 (Idaho 1975). · cites it 11× “"* * * [S]ince the statute which made the insurance proceeds possible was explicit in announcing that the insured shall have the right to designate the recipient of the insurance, and that `No person shall have a vested right' to those proceeds, 38 U.S.C. § 802 (i), 38 U.S.C.A.…”

Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U.S. 655 (1950). · cites it 6× “" 38 U. S. C. § 802 (g). Thus Congress has spoken with force and clarity in directing that the proceeds belong to the named beneficiary and no other.”

Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979). · cites it 2× “See 38 U. S. C. § 802 (g) (1946 ed.). From this explicit provision, the Court found that Congress had "spoken with force and clarity" in directing that the proceeds were to belong to the "named beneficiary and no other.”

United States v. Henning, 344 U.S. 66 (1952). · cites it 10× “*80 The literal language of Congress in 38 U. S. C. § 802 (i) we would read with emphasis as follows: "The right of any beneficiary to payment of any installments shall be conditioned upon his or her being alive to receive such payments.”

Peak v. United States, 353 U.S. 43 (1957). · cites it 4× “Furthermore the allegations of permanent and total disability at the time of disappearance of the insured, if proved, would bring the petitioner within the premium waiver provisions of 38 U. S. C. § 802 (n). Since the claim was filed by petitioner within one year subsequent to…”

Hillman v. Maretta, 133 S. Ct. 1943 (2013). “(quoting 38 U.S.C. § 802 (g) (1946 ed.) ). We reasoned that "Congress has spoken with force and clarity in directing that the proceeds belong to the named beneficiary and no other.”

Herrington v. Boatright, 633 S.W.2d 781 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “' 38 U.S.C. § 802 (g), 38 U.S.C.A. § 802 (g).”

James v. United States, 185 F.2d 115 (4th Cir. 1950). · cites it 4× “By 38 U.S.C.A. § 802 (c)(2) reinstatement may be denied on the grounds of total disability resulting from active service.”

Rowan v. United States, 115 F. Supp. 503 (E.D. Pa. 1953). · cites it 7× “at pages 282, 283, the plaintiff, contending that a conflict in findings by the Veterans’ Administration was caused foy a misconstruction of 38 U.S.C.A. § 802 (c) (2), as amended, sought to compel the Veterans’ Administration to grant him insurance.”

United States v. Short, 240 F.2d 292 (9th Cir. 1956). · cites it 12× “§ 802 (u), provides: “With respect to insurance maturing on or susequent to August 1, 1946, in any case in which the beneficiary is entitled to a lump-sum settlement but elects some other mode of settlement and dies before receiving all the benefits due and payable under such…”

Bradley v. United States, 143 F.2d 573 (10th Cir. 1944). · cites it 2× “1009 , 38 U.S.C.A. § 802 (g). The applicable regulation governing the right to change the beneficiary, as promulgated by the Administrator in pursuance of his statutory *576 authority, 54 Stat.”

Juanito Timoni v. United States, 419 F.2d 294 (D.C. Cir. 1969). · cites it 5× “38 U.S.C. § 802 (Id) (3) (1952). 4 . In its pleadings in the District Court, the Government denied the relationship, and disputed appellant’s allegations as to the date of his birth and as to the date on which a valid claim was first submitted to the Veterans’ Administration.”

Show all 224 citing cases →

— 38 U.S.C. § 802(c) — 2 cases

Unger v. United States, 79 F. Supp. 281 (E.D. Ill. 1948).

Gamez v. United States, 95 F. Supp. 656 (S.D. Tex. 1951).

— 38 U.S.C. § 802(d) — 1 case

Estelita B. Vda De Castillo v. United States of Am., & Adm'r of Vets. Affairs, 438 F.2d 151 (D.C. Cir. 1970).

— 38 U.S.C. § 802(d)(2) — 1 case

Moreto v. United States, 135 F. Supp. 327 (D.D.C. 1955).

— 38 U.S.C. § 802(f) — 2 cases

Candell v. United States, 189 F.2d 442 (10th Cir. 1951).

Lollos v. Vets. Admin., 105 F. Supp. 870 (D.N.J. 1952).

— 38 U.S.C. § 802(g) — 7 cases

Mitchell v. United States, 165 F.2d 758 (5th Cir. 1948).

Fitzstephens v. United States, 189 F. Supp. 919 (D. Wyo. 1960).

McCollum v. Sieben, 211 F.2d 708 (8th Cir. 1954).

Batts v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 26 (E.D.N.C. 1954).

Lincoln Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 71 F. Supp. 745 (W.D. Ky. 1947).

— 38 U.S.C. § 802(h) — 1 case

United States v. H. E. Yost, 229 F.2d 75 (5th Cir. 1956).

— 38 U.S.C. § 802(i) — 1 case

Baumet v. United States, 177 F.2d 806 (2d Cir. 1949).

— 38 U.S.C. § 802(m) — 1 case

Rodgers v. United States, 133 F. Supp. 62 (W.D. Ky. 1955).

— 38 U.S.C. § 802(n) — 2 cases

United States v. William H. Sinor, Adm'r of the Est. of Clyde Sinor, Deceased, & William H. Sinor, 238 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1956).

Fox v. United States, 201 F.2d 883 (5th Cir. 1953).

— 38 U.S.C. § 802(o) — 1 case

Rodgers v. United States, 66 F. Supp. 663 (E.D. Pa. 1946).

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.