The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8 BEVERLY NEHMER, et al.,
9 Plaintiffs, No. C 86-06160 WHA
10 v.
ORDER ON SERVICEMEMBER’S
11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS CLAIM AND PLAINTIFFS’
AFFAIRS, SUBPOENA REQUEST
12
Defendant.
13
14
15 INTRODUCTION
16 In this settled class action concerning relief due veterans of the Vietnam War, one
17 veteran’s son contests the denial of his father’s claim, while class counsel requests a subpoena
18 to investigate the same issue on a broader basis. For reasons below, all relief is denied.
19 STATEMENT
20 Nearly 35 years ago, Judge Thelton Henderson entered the consent decree that still
21 governs certain timely submitted claims of Vietnam War veterans seeking compensation for
22 diseases related to their service (Dkt. No. 141). The consent decree’s coverage conditions have
23 been clarified over time. Two are relevant here. First, to be eligible for relief under the
24 consent decree, a claim must have been either (a) denied between 1985 and 1989 or else
25 (b) pending or filed after 1989 (see id. ¶ 3). See Nehmer v. Veterans’ Admin., 284 F.3d 1158,
26 1162 (9th Cir. 2002); Nehmer v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 494 F.3d 846, 858 (9th Cir.
27 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.816(c)(1)–(2). Second, the claimant must have served in the Vietnam
1 Vietnam,” (b) in Vietnam’s “brown water” (its inland waterways), or (c) in its “blue water” (its
2 non-inland but territorial waters) (Dkt. No. 492 at 4 [Nehmer v. U.S. Dep’t of Veteran Affs.,
3 No. C 86-06160 WHA, 2020 WL 6508529, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2020)]).
4 This latest challenge to the consent decree’s terms concerns a military veteran who
5 allegedly submitted a timely claim, allegedly had put “boots on the ground” in Vietnam, yet
6 allegedly was denied compensation because he lacked any military record corroborating that he
7 had put “boots on the ground” — a problem allegedly plaguing 450,000 other veterans.
8 Specifically, Servicemember Jefferson Hill flew to Saigon in 1968, touched foot to tarmac long
9 enough to receive his final duty assignment (a short but unknown period), then departed to
10 Thailand to complete his ordered service there. While in Saigon, he placed a phone call to his
11 family, to which his son attests. No record of his flight exists. Some 450,000 service members
12 purportedly put “boots on the ground” in Vietnam for stopovers on their way to and from
13 neighboring countries during the period of the Vietnam War. And, their flight records no
14 longer exist, either, allegedly because the records were destroyed to limit compensation due to
15 veterans under our consent decree. These allegations were all raised by Servicemember Hill’s
16 son (Ltr. Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8–10).*
17 In response, the parties agreed that the Department of Veterans Affairs would provide
18 class counsel with Servicemember Hill’s claim file and that the two would exchange briefing
19 about it and any issues implicated (Dkt. Nos. 554, 558). No hearing is necessary. Civil L.R. 7-
20 1(b).
21 ANALYSIS
22 Both sides agree: Servicemember Hill was ineligible for relief under our consent decree
23 because his claims were filed and decided too soon to be covered (Gov’t 5; Class 2–3). His
24 claim was filed and decided in 1975 (Class Exh. 1; see also Ltr. Decl. ¶ 10). But the consent
25 decree covers only certain claims decided after 1985, as above (Dkt. No. 141 ¶ 3).
26
* In our unusual posture, our abbreviated citations are to the son’s two letters and declarations
27
(Dkt. No. 550-1 (“Ltr.”); Dkt. No. 550 (“Ltr. Decl.”); Dkt. No. 556 (“2d Ltr.”); Dkt. No. 557 (“2d
] The VA argues there are also medical reasons why the claims are ineligible. Class
2 counsel disagrees. There is no need to reach the issue.
3 For its part, class counsel requests a broad subpoena to search other departments for
4 flight records (or for their destruction). But, as Servicemember Hill has failed other eligibility
5 criteria already, no claim has been shown to turn solely on such evidence to merit such inquiry.
6 CONCLUSION
7 Relief as to Servicemember Hill is DENIED. A subpoena is DENIED. The hearing
8 associated with these matters is VACATED AS MOoT.
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11 Dated: September 20, 2025.
2 Lr Pee
LLIAM ALSUP
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
(14
16
«17
Oo
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28