Broudy, Alice P. v. Mather, Susan H.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that although Harbury discussed this requirement in the context of a backward-looking claim, nothing “suggests that a forward-looking claim can proceed if a plaintiff can still meaningfully pursue the underlying claim”
• holding, after comprehensive analysis, that the plaintiffs could not show “under any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint that the defendants completely foreclosed their opportunity to meaningfully pursue underlying benefits claims’’
• noting that Section 511 “does not give the VA exclusive jurisdiction to construe laws affecting the provision of veterans benefits or to consider all issues that might somehow touch upon whether someone receives veterans benefits”
• explaining § 511(a) forbids district court review of VA Secretary’s decision that veterans were not entitled to the benefits they sought
• noting the availability of alternative administrative solutions to achieve the requested remedies and that by failing to exhaust their administrative remedies, plaintiffs could not show that their underlying claims had been completely foreclosed
• describing required elements of access-to-courts claims as including a showing of “an arguable underlying claim and present foreclosure of a meaningful opportunity to pursue that claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).