{"id":411,"date":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=411"},"modified":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","slug":"hammerlord-collins-va-medical-1983-ada-elder-abuse-dismissal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=411","title":{"rendered":"Hammerlord v. Collins \u2014 S.D. Cal. Dismisses Veteran’s Suit Against VA Doctors on \u00a71983 Due-Process, ADA, and Elder-Abuse Theories"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Hammerlord v. Collins<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-20<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-00882<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Section 1983 due process, ADA Title II, Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act, Older Americans Act, private right of action, IFP screening under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1915(e)(2)(B)<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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. \u00a7\u00a7 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. \u00a7 1915, the court was required to screen the complaint under \u00a7 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismiss any claims that fail to state a claim or that are immune from suit.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The \u00a71983 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 \u00a71983, the \u00a71985 conspiracy claim necessarily failed too under the Ninth Circuit’s Thornton v. City of St. Helens<\/em> rule.<\/p>\n

The federal elder-abuse claim failed because the federal Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act (34 U.S.C. \u00a7 21701 et seq.) does not provide a private right of action \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n