Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01758/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01758-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Eddy Jean Philippeaux
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

EDDY JEAN PHILIPPEAUX,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1758

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-3361, Judge Lawrence B. 

Hagel.

______________________ 

Decided: August 9, 2016

______________________ 

EDDY JEAN PHILIPPEAUX, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

TANYA KOENIG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., MARTIN 

F. HOCKEY, JR.; Y. KEN LEE, BRANDON A. JONAS, Office of 

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC. 

Case: 16-1758 Document: 29-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/09/2016
2 PHILIPPEAUX v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Eddy J. Philippeaux (“Philippeaux”) appeals the final decision of the United States Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) (1) dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus as moot, and 

(2) denying his motions for revision of several regional 

office decisions. Philippeaux v. McDonald, No. 15-3361, 

2016 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 195, *11-12 (Vet. App.

Feb. 17, 2016). His underlying claims are to benefits for a 

psychiatric disorder and traumatic brain injury (“TBI”). 

We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Philippeaux served on active duty in the Navy from 

1972 to 1980 and in the Air Force from 1984 to 1985. 

Philippeaux first filed a claim for service connection for a 

nervous condition on February 27, 1995. His claim was 

denied due to lack of evidence supporting a claim that the 

condition manifested itself during active military service. 

Philippeaux filed a Notice of Disagreement (“NOD”) to 

that decision on February 26, 1997. A second rating 

decision on July 30, 1997 again denied Philippeaux’s 

claim for benefits for a nervous condition. Philippeaux 

did not appeal that decision, which became final. On July 

1, 2008, Philippeaux filed another claim for a psychiatric 

condition—this time, phrased as a “psychotic disorder.” 

On April 22, 2011, after considering a plethora of statements in support of claim and treatment records, the U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) issued a rating 

decision granting service connection for a psychiatric 

disorder with an 100% evaluation and an effective date of 

July 1, 2008. 

Case: 16-1758 Document: 29-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/09/2016
PHILIPPEAUX v. MCDONALD 3

Philippeaux then sought an earlier effective date for 

his psychiatric disorder. On July 6, 2015, the RO certified 

for appeal the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective 

date for the psychiatric disorder to the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals (the “Board”). The Board notified Mr. 

Philippeaux that it had formally docketed his appeal by a 

letter dated August 24, 2015. 

Concurrently with his appeals, Philippeaux requested 

revisions of the February and July 1997 decisions and the 

April 2011 decision, on the ground that the effective date 

of July 1, 2008 was a clear and unmistakable error 

(“CUE”). In a February 4, 2015 rating decision, the VA 

determined that there was no CUE. The VA reiterated its 

decision in rating decisions issued in October and November of 2015. 

In a December 2015 rating decision on the same claim 

to an earlier effective date, however, the VA found for the 

first time that the July 30, 1997 decision could not subsume the NOD that Philippeaux had filed on February 26, 

1997. The VA found, therefore, that an appeal from the 

February 27, 1995 decision had been pending ever since. 

Because subsequent decisions granted service connection 

for the psychiatric disorder, the VA granted Philippeaux 

an effective date of February 27, 1995, his original filing 

date. But based upon a VA examination from 1996 and 

the overall evidentiary record, the VA assigned a 50% 

disability rating for the pre-July 2008 period. 

Philippeaux filed a NOD with the VA’s decision, seeking a 

100% rating going back to 1995. 

Philippeaux separately filed a claim for TBI, which 

was denied on May 25, 2010. In response, Philippeaux 

filed a NOD, which prompted additional examinations 

and statements of the case. Most recently, on March 3, 

2015, the VA issued a Supplemental Statement of the 

Case (“SSOC”) denying TBI, stating that a VA examination conducted in February 2015 showed no TBI. On July 

Case: 16-1758 Document: 29-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/09/2016
4 PHILIPPEAUX v. MCDONALD

6, 2015, the VA certified the issue of service connection for 

TBI to the Board. In August 2015, the Board acknowledged that the TBI claim was under appeal. 

On September 2, 2015, Philippeaux petitioned the 

Veterans Court for a writ of mandamus. Philippeaux’s 

petition asked the court, inter alia, to (1) compel the 

Board to certify his appeal of his claims for an earlier 

effective date for his psychiatric disorder and his claim for 

service connection for TBI; and (2) to compel the Secretary 

to make determinations on his motions for revision of the 

February 1997, July 1997, and April 2011 rating decisions

on the basis of CUE. 

The Veterans Court dismissed Philippeaux’s petition

for writ of mandamus as moot. The court also rejected 

Philippeaux’s motions for revision of his February 1997, 

July 1997, and April 2011 rating decisions on the basis of

CUE. Philippeaux now appeals the Veterans Court’s 

decision. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court

is limited by statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). Absent 

a constitutional issue, we review only questions of law 

and lack jurisdiction to review factual determinations or 

the application of law to the particular facts of an appeal 

from the Veterans Court. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

“This limited jurisdiction extends to our review of the 

Veteran’s court dismissal of a petition for a writ of mandamus.” Morgan v. Shinseki, 428 F. App’x 974, 975 (Fed. 

Cir. 2011) (citing Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1381-

82 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Gebhart v. Peake, 289 F. App’x. 402, 

403 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). 

The Veterans Court has the authority to issue extraordinary writs in aid of its jurisdiction pursuant to the 

All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). See Cox v. West, 149 

F.3d 1360, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 1998). But “[t]he remedy of 

Case: 16-1758 Document: 29-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/09/2016
PHILIPPEAUX v. MCDONALD 5

mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of 

Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) (citations omitted). Three 

conditions must be met for a court to issue a writ: 1) there 

must be a lack of alternative means for review, 2) there 

must be a clear and undisputable right to the writ, and 3) 

the court must be convinced, given the circumstances, 

that issuance of a writ is warranted. Jackson v. McDonald, 606 Fed. Appx. 999, 1001, No. 2015-7008, 2015 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 5926, *5 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Cheney v. 

U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)).

Philippeaux does not argue that the Veterans Court 

misinterpreted this legal standard and, in fact, does not 

mention his request for a writ of mandamus in his informal brief, even though the writ was the subject of the 

decision on appeal. To the extent Philippeaux’s recitation 

of various legal provisions constitute arguments pertaining to the writ, however, we find, in any event, that the 

Veterans Court properly dismissed Philippeaux’s petition 

for a writ of mandamus as moot. See Philippeaux, 2016 

U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 195, at *8. Philippeaux has 

not demonstrated that any delay on the part of the VA 

was so extraordinary as to rise to the level of refusal to 

act. Instead, the record shows that the Board has recently acted on his claims by confirming in August 2015 that 

his appeal regarding the VA’s denial of his claims for 

benefits for TBI and for an earlier effective date for his 

psychiatric disorder is pending. The October 2015 VA 

rating decision on Philippeaux’s claims also noted that

“the issue of entitlement to service connection for traumatic brain injury remains under appeal.” Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 24. The court’s dismissal of the petition was, 

therefore, proper. 

We also discern no arguments from Philippeaux regarding the portion of the Veterans Court’s decision 

denying his motions for revision of the February 1997, 

July 1997, and April 2011 rating decisions on the basis of 

Case: 16-1758 Document: 29-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/09/2016
6 PHILIPPEAUX v. MCDONALD

CUE. In any event, no CUE can be alleged because TBI 

was not a subject of those decisions. Further, the April 

2011 decision cannot be the subject of a motion for revision on the basis of CUE because it is currently pending 

appeal before the Board. With respect to Philippeaux’s 

psychiatric disorder and the 1997 rating decisions, the 

Secretary addressed Philippeaux’s motions to revise the 

effective date of benefits. Specifically, the December 2015 

decision awarded Philippeaux an effective date of February 27, 1995 with a 50% rating between then and July 1, 

2008. 

Philippeaux’s informal brief alleges that the Veterans 

Court misinterpreted 38 U.S.C. § 7261 when he was 

denied benefits. Because Mr. Philippeaux does not specifically allege how the Veterans Court misinterpreted the 

scope of review statute and it is not apparent from the 

court’s decision, we do not consider the allegation further. 

Philippeaux also alleges constitutional violations in 

his brief. He indicates that he was denied constitutional

rights for twenty years due to cover-up schemes by VA 

personnel and the denial of his rights to the Veterans 

Judicial Review Act appeal process. He further argues 

that the VA violated his Fifth Amendment rights to due 

process and equal protection when it denied him benefits 

and denied him access to the VA appeal process. Finally, 

Philippeaux argues that the VA violated his Fifth 

Amendment rights to due process and equal protection 

when Congress failed to provide an exception to 38 

U.S.C. § 5110. “Absent an explanation providing an

adequate basis for [a veteran’s] claims, mere assertions of 

constitutional violations cannot invoke [the Court’s] 

jurisdiction.” Payne v. McDonald, 587 Fed. App’x 649, 651 

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 

1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Because Philippeaux has made 

only vague and unsubstantiated assertions of Constitutional violations without support, we lack jurisdiction 

over such claims. 

Case: 16-1758 Document: 29-2 Page: 6 Filed: 08/09/2016
PHILIPPEAUX v. MCDONALD 7

We have considered Philippeaux’s remaining arguments and have found them to be without merit. 

CONCLUSION

The decision of the Veterans Court dismissing his petition as moot and denying his CUE motions is, therefore, 

affirmed. We do not have jurisdiction over Philippeaux’s 

remaining claims, and, therefore, do not pass on the 

merits of those claims.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-1758 Document: 29-2 Page: 7 Filed: 08/09/2016