Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
M. Norman Hammerlord is an 80-year-old disabled veteran who receives medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs at the VA San Diego Healthcare System in La Jolla. After a series of medical visits in 2024 and 2025 in which he disagreed with his primary-care doctor’s clinical recommendations (particularly her advice to try CPAP therapy rather than the oxygen therapy he requested), he engaged in a lengthy paper trail of memoranda, requests for medical records, complaints to VA leadership, criminal complaints with the VA Police, a $7.5 million Federal Tort Claims Act-style claim, and a consumer complaint to the California Medical Board.
He sued the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the VA San Diego director, and his primary-care doctor (and, after amendment, his replacement primary-care doctor) for violation of due process, civil-rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, elder abuse, ADA Title II disability discrimination, and violation of the Older Americans Act. Because he was proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court was required to screen the complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismiss any claims that fail to state a claim or that are immune from suit.
The Court’s Holding
This was the court’s second screening order. The first complaint had been dismissed with leave to amend; the amended complaint repeated some claims and added new ones (elder abuse under federal rather than California law, and Older Americans Act). The court dismissed the entire amended complaint, with most claims dismissed with prejudice and only the ADA claim allowed one more attempt.
The §1983 due-process claim failed because the plaintiff did not allege facts supporting either (1) a procedural due process theory (which requires identifying a protected liberty or property interest at stake) or (2) a substantive due process theory (which requires conscience-shocking behavior). Without §1983, the §1985 conspiracy claim necessarily failed too under the Ninth Circuit’s Thornton v. City of St. Helens rule.
The federal elder-abuse claim failed because the federal Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act (34 U.S.C. § 21701 et seq.) does not provide a private right of action — it is a federal grant-and-coordination statute, not a vehicle for individual suits. The Older Americans Act claim failed for the same reason: no private right of action.
On the ADA Title II claim, the plaintiff cured one defect from the first round (he plausibly alleged he is a person with a disability) but still failed to allege the other elements of the claim: that he was qualified to participate in or receive benefits from the VA’s services, that he was excluded or denied benefits or otherwise discriminated against, and that the exclusion or discrimination was “by reason of” his disability. The ADA claim was dismissed with one more chance to amend by February 12, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Patient disagreement with a doctor’s clinical recommendations — even when accompanied by extensive correspondence and complaints — does not automatically translate into federal due-process or civil-rights claims. Plaintiffs must identify a specific liberty or property interest, and substantive due-process claims require conscience-shocking conduct.
- The federal Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act and the Older Americans Act do not provide private rights of action. Plaintiffs should look to state-law elder-abuse statutes (like California’s Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 15600 et seq.) for individual claims.
- ADA Title II disability-discrimination claims have four elements that must all be plausibly alleged: (1) plaintiff is disabled, (2) plaintiff is qualified to participate in the public entity’s services, (3) plaintiff was excluded or discriminated against, and (4) the exclusion was “by reason of” disability.
- Federal courts are required to screen IFP complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismiss claims that fail to state a claim. Plaintiffs proceeding without filing fees should expect rigorous review.
Why It Matters
VA medical-care disputes are not uncommon. This decision is a useful summary of the legal hurdles veterans face when they try to convert clinical disagreements into federal civil-rights or disability-discrimination cases. The decision underscores that not every grievance against a federal medical provider has a federal cause of action — many specific federal statutes that sound like they should help (the Elder Abuse Act, the Older Americans Act) lack a private right of action.
For California veterans and their advocates, the decision is also a reminder of the practical alternatives: California has detailed elder-abuse statutes, the Federal Tort Claims Act provides a vehicle for medical-malpractice claims against federal providers (subject to its strict procedural rules), and state medical boards regulate physician conduct. Federal civil-rights litigation under §1983 is a difficult fit for clinical-care disputes.