Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-07136/USCOURTS-ca13-14-07136-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Robert G. Thornton
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERT G. THORNTON,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-7136

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-1601, Judge Coral Wong 

Pietsch.

______________________ 

Decided: January 26, 2015 

______________________ 

ROBERT G. THORNTON, Corona, California, pro se. 

ANTHONY F. SCHIAVETTI, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondentappellee. With him on the brief were JOYCE R. BRANDA, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., Director, and ALLISON KIDD-MILLER, 

Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Y. KEN 

Case: 14-7136 Document: 15-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/26/2015
2 THORNTON v. MCDONALD

LEE, Deputy Assistant, General Counsel, and CHRISTINA 

L. GREGG, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

 Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Robert Thornton appeals the order of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his 

petition for a writ of mandamus based on an alleged delay 

in granting him benefits. Because the Veterans Court 

properly denied Mr. Thornton’s petition, on the basis that 

mandamus was not the only form of relief available, we 

affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Thornton, an Army veteran, filed an informal 

claim for veterans’ benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) on March 1, 2007. After the VA 

requested clarification of his claim, Mr. Thornton filed a 

formal claim on October 17, 2007. In his formal claim, 

Mr. Thornton sought (1) service connection for (a) hearing 

loss in his left ear; (b) tinnitus; and (c) a psychiatric 

disability; and (2) an increased rating for his serviceconnected hearing loss in his right ear. Pursuant to his 

claim for psychiatric disability, Mr. Thornton was examined for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) in July 

2008. 

On September 12, 2008, the VA issued a rating decision which (1) granted service connection for his PTSD, 

with a rating of 70 percent from the date of the formal 

claim until his July 2008 examination, and a 50 percent 

rating thereafter; (2) denied service connection for the 

hearing loss in his left ear; and (3) continued the noncompensable rating for the hearing loss in his right ear. 

Case: 14-7136 Document: 15-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/26/2015
THORNTON v. MCDONALD 3

Mr. Thornton filed a Notice of Disagreement with the 

September 12, 2008 decision on October 14, 2008, seeking 

increased disability ratings, including a rating of 100 

percent for his service-connected PTSD.

The VA issued a Statement of the Case on July 19, 

2010. Eight days later, the VA accepted a statement from 

Mr. Thornton in lieu of a VA Form 9, effectively initiating 

his appeal. Because Mr. Thornton sought an increased 

rating for his PTSD, the VA scheduled Mr. Thornton for 

another examination. On December 11, 2012, a VA 

Decision Review Officer (“DRO”) issued a rating decision, 

increasing Mr. Thornton’s PSTD rating to 100 percent, 

effective from the date of his formal claim, October 17, 

2007. 

Mr. Thornton filed a Notice of Disagreement with the 

DRO’s rating decision in November 2013. After some 

delay, Mr. Thornton filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on May 23, 2014. He sought certification of his 

appeal of the effective dates of his disabilities and forwarding of his claims to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

(“Board”), expedited consideration of his appeal, an order 

that the VA abide by various statutes, an order requiring 

the VA to stipulate it unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed Mr. Thornton’s benefits, and the grant of the 

benefits sought. 

On June 4, 2014, the VA issued a rating decision 

granting an earlier effective date of March 1, 2007 (the 

date of the informal claim) for Mr. Thornton’s PTSD, his 

hearing loss, and tinnitus, as well as a higher rating for 

the hearing loss. In a July 31, 2014 order, the Veterans 

Court denied Mr. Thornton’s mandamus petition. The 

Veterans Court denied the request for an order of a public 

apology by the VA as it would be an improper use of 

mandamus authority. The Veterans Court also refused to 

grant the benefits sought or certify his appeal because Mr. 

Thornton had an alternative remedy in the form of an 

Case: 14-7136 Document: 15-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/26/2015
4 THORNTON v. MCDONALD

appeal from the June 4, 2014 decision and because any 

delay on the VA’s part did not constitute an arbitrary 

refusal to act.

Mr. Thornton appeals the Veterans Court’s denial of 

his petition for a writ of mandamus. Mr. Thornton contends that a supposed failure by the VA to consider a CD 

with copies of relevant records in support of his mandamus petition and an informal Notice of Disagreement 

from 1989 amounts to suppression of evidence that violates his due process rights. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court 

is statutorily limited. Congress has authorized this court 

to “review . . . any challenge to the validity of any statute 

or regulation or any interpretation thereof” and to “interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent 

presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(c). We may not review challenges to factual determinations or to laws or regulations as applied to the 

facts of a particular case, except to the extent that the 

appeal presents a constitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2). 

These restrictions apply to our review of a decision by the 

Veterans Court on a mandamus petition. Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

While we cannot review the merits of a veteranpetitioner’s claim, we can review a determination of 

whether the petitioner has satisfied the legal requirements for a writ of mandamus to issue. Beasley v. 

Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For a 

court to grant the writ, three requirements must be 

satisfied: (1) the petitioner must have no other adequate 

means to attain the desired relief; (2) the petitioner must 

show that the right to the relief is clear and indisputable; 

and (3) exercising its discretion, the issuing court must 

decide that the remedy is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 

Case: 14-7136 Document: 15-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/26/2015
THORNTON v. MCDONALD 5

U.S. 367, 380-81 (citations and quotations omitted). 

Indeed, the bar for mandamus relief is very high because 

the mandamus remedy is a drastic one, only to be granted 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 

Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976).

Here, as the Veterans Court found, Mr. Thornton is

not able to meet all the requirements for mandamus 

relief. First, Mr. Thornton does not satisfy the requirement that he have no other means of relief available. The 

VA issued a decision on June 4, 2014 that addressed the 

benefits Mr. Thornton was seeking and substantially 

increased his ratings. If Mr. Thornton is not satisfied 

with the VA’s decision, he may appeal it to the Board. In 

light of the ability to appeal the VA’s decision, Mr. 

Thornton is unable to meet the requirement that he have 

no other adequate means besides a writ of mandamus to 

obtain the relief he desires. 

Second, the Veterans Court properly found that mandamus relief was not justifiable under these circumstances merely because the VA’s decision was delayed. To this 

point, the Veterans Court found that though Mr. 

Thornton’s claim could have been processed more quickly, 

the VA’s delay did not amount to an arbitrary refusal to 

act. Mandamus relief would be improper simply to correct 

past delays or prevent future ones. We have explained 

that a petition for a writ of mandamus is not the appropriate vehicle for circumventing the appeals process “even 

though hardship may result from delay and perhaps 

unnecessary trial.” Lamb, 284 F.3d at 1384. The circumstantial delay in processing Mr. Thornton’s claim is 

insufficient to justify mandamus relief.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Thornton is unable to meet the requirements for 

the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Because he has 

another means to attain his desired relief and mandamus 

is not justified under these circumstances, we affirm the 

Case: 14-7136 Document: 15-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/26/2015
6 THORNTON v. MCDONALD

Veterans Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Case: 14-7136 Document: 15-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/26/2015