'Further consideration has been given all the evidence on file. It has been determined that the evidence is not new and material or contrary to that already of record and therefore no change is warranted in the disallowance action of your claim. The denial action of your appeal by the Board of Veterans Appeals constitutes final administrative determination.' (Emphasis supplied.)
The last letter, dated April 14, 1959, reads:
'This has reference to your letter of February 5, 1959 addressed to the President of the United States. Since the President's onerous duties precludes his answering your letter, it has been referred to this office for reply.
'The statements in your letter which were considered in connection with all other evidence on file does not warrant any change in the prior determination of this administration.' (Emphasis supplied.)
To show that these statements did not mislead the plaintiff into believing her claim was still pending, it is only necessary to point out that after receiving the October 28, 1958, letter, the next action taken by the plaintiff was to write to the President of the United States and 'vehemently protest the arbitrariness' with which the Veterans' Administration acted. The President forwarded her letter to the Veterans' Administration which answered with the April 14, 1959, letter, set forth above. Obviously plaintiff was not misled by this letter because after receiving it she instituted this suit. Moreover, since no letter prior to October 28, 1958, could reasonably be said to have misled the plaintiff, the letter of that date and the one of April 14, 1959, are of no aid to the plaintiff, even if it is assumed they misled her, since the statute had run for some seven years and three months by October 28, 1958.
In the points and authorities filed with the court, counsel for plaintiff states:
'The filing of the claim tolled and suspended the running of the statute until final administrative denial of her claim on April 14, 1959.' (Emphasis supplied.)
If the April 14, 1959, letter is sufficient to indicate the Veterans' Administration's unwillingness to reconsider the plaintiff's claim (and the Court agrees that it is), why is not the less ambiguous letter of June 18, 1955, also so sufficient?
The Court concludes that plaintiff's benefits were improperly terminated but that this Court has no jurisdiction to remedy the situation. The Administrator, not being similarly hampered, may desire to correct his error.
Defendant's motion is granted; plaintiff's motion is denied. An order accompanies this memorandum.