5 U.S.C. § 8912
Jurisdiction of courts
The district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of a civil action or claim against the United States founded on this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh (2006)
“FEHBA's jurisdictional provision, 5 U. S. C. § 8912 , opens the federal district-court door to civil actions "against the United States.”
National Treasury Employees Union v. Alan K. Campbell, Chairman, United States Civil Service Commission (1978)
“5 In our judgment, however, resort to Section 1331(a) is unnecessary because the jurisdictional provision within the Health Benefits Act itself — 5 U.S.C. § 8912 — expressly resolves both problems by waiving sovereign immunity and granting jurisdiction to the District Courts…”
Gonzalez v. Blue Cross Blue Shield (2023)
“” OPM erroneously assumes that it can use a regulation to narrow or retract a statutory waiver of immunity.”
State Farm Indemnity v. Fornaro (2002)
“5 U.S.C. § 8912 provides that, “(t)he district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the *239 United States Court of Federal Claims, of a civil action or claim against the United States founded on this chapter.”
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh (2005)
“This makes the tariffs fundamentally different from a FEHBA contract, which the government does not impose but rather negotiates with willing insurance companies.”
Estate of Williams-Moore v. Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc. (2004)
“See also 5 U.S.C. § 8912 (FEHBA’s jurisdictional statement, providing that ”[t]he district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of a civil action or claim against the United States founded on this…”
Bruce F. Botsford v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (2002)
“5 U.S.C. § 8912 . 42 . 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (f) (2002); 29 U.”
Rosano v. United States (1985)
“Plaintiff contends that jurisdiction over this claim is conferred upon the Claims Court by 5 U.S.C. § 8912 , which provides: § 8912.”
Marilyn Goepel Ronald Goepel v. National Postal Mail Handlers Union, a Division of Liuna, D/B/A Mail Handlers Benefit Pl (1994)
“” 5 U.S.C. § 8912 . But the United States is not a party to this action.”
López-Muñoz v. Triple-S Salud, Inc. (2014)
“107 (c), and the FEHBA’s grant of federal jurisdiction over FEHBA-based actions against the United States, see 5 U.S.C. § 8912 . But even if we assume, favorably to the defendant, that an administrative claims process with concomitant judicial review can qualify as an exclusive…”
Texas Health Choice, L.C. v. Office of Personnel Management (2005)
“As an alternative ground to affirm the district court’s denial of OPM’s motions to dismiss and transfer venue, Texas Health asserts that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 8912 , the jurisdictional provision of the FEHBA.”
John R. Van Drasek, Captain v. John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy (1985)
“1978), that the district court had jurisdiction over damages claims under 5 U.S.C. § 8912 , which provides that the “district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of Claims, of a civil action or claim against the United States founded…”
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.