THE
MILITARY
RETIREE MEDICAL CARE
BROKEN PROMISE ISSUE
| Extracted from United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 99-1402, WILLIAM O. SCHISM and ROBERT L. REINLIE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, decisions. |
The 8 Feb 2001 decision (It should be noted that this decision came just before the next election year)
Reference http://www.fedcir.gov/dailylog.html , 2001/02/08 99-1402.exe DCT, Schism v. United States
- The retirees entered active duty in the armed forces and completed at least twenty years service on the good faith belief that the government would fulfill its promises. The terms of the contract were set when the retirees entered the service and fulfilled their obligation. The government cannot unilaterally amend the contract terms now. “In contracts involving the government, as with all contractual relationships, rights vest and contract terms become binding when, after arms length negotiation, all parties to the contract agree to exchange real obligations for real benefits.” Winstar, 64 F.3d at 1546. Because failure to perform a contractual duty when it is due is a breach, see Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 235(2) (1981), the government breached its implied-in-fact contract with the retirees when it failed to provide them with health care benefits at no cost.[3] The district court therefore erred in granting summary judgment to the government and, on the record before us, abused its discretion in denying the retiree’s motion for summary judgment of liability.
- Conclusion
- Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida is reversed and the case is remanded for determination of damages.
- The 13 June 2001 decision (It should be noted that this appeal was expected)
The above decision was appealed. See http://www.fedcir.gov/dailylog.html , 2001/06/13 99-1402.exe DCT, Schism v. United States
The 11 Nov 2002 decision (It should be noted that this decision came right after election day)
Reference http://www.fedcir.gov/dailylog.html , 2002/11/18 99-1402.exe DCT, Schism v. United States
IV. Conclusion
We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim.
Federal judges have a duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws, even if that means making unpleasant or unpopular decisions. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to make law, not simply to interpret and apply it. As our predecessor court said:
Congress has the power and authority under the Constitution to establish a system for the payment of retired pay [for military service members] and to change the system from time to time. . . . We understand and appreciate the dissatisfaction of the plaintiffs with the change in the retirement pay system, as they have rendered long and faithful service to our country in time of peace and war. However, if they are to get any relief, it must come from Congress, as this is not within [a court's] jurisdiction.