Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Gilbert L. MARCUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee

Gilbert L. MARCUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, 909 F.2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1990)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1990-07-30
Topic
employee-benefits-and-executive-compensation

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over claims for Social Security benefits
  • holding that this court has no jurisdiction over claims contesting the denial ofSocial Security disability benefits
  • holding “that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act ... over claims to social security benefits____”
  • holding “that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over claims to social security benefits.” (internal citation omitted)
  • rejecting a plaintiffs claims for Social Security benefits because the Claims Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act
  • affirming dismissal of an action in Claims Court seeking review of denial of social security benefits for lack of jurisdiction
  • stating this Court does not have jurisdiction over claims related to social security benefits
  • “[W]e hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act . . . over claims to social security benefits.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gilbert L. MARCUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
72 opinions
NIES, Chief Judge.

Gilbert L. Marcus appeals from the Claims Court’s order, Marcus v. United States, No. 688-89 C (December 20, 1989) (Bruggink, J.), dismissing his claim for lack of jurisdiction. Although entitled a “Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Respondum”, appellant seeks a reversal of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying an award of social security disability benefits. Construing appellant’s pleading in a light most favorable to him, that is, as a claim for social security disability benefits, we hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (1988), over claims to social security benefits, even considering appellant’s assertions that he is entitled to relief under the Constitution. See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756-767, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 2462-2467, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975); (42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and (h) (1982) require that action for social security benefits must be brought in district court); cf. Alabama Hospital Ass’n v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 176, 656 F.2d 606 (1981). The judgment of the Claims Court is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.