Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-23-02097/USCOURTS-ca13-23-02097-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denis McDonough
Appellee
Andrew J. Winterbottom
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

ANDREW J. WINTERBOTTOM,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2023-2097

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 22-4604, Judge Grant Jaquith.

______________________

Decided: December 27, 2024

______________________

LAURA ANDERSON, The Veterans Law Group, Poway, 

CA, argued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by 

MARK RYAN LIPPMAN. 

 SOSUN BAE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also 

represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES 

GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON,

BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

 ______________________

Case: 23-2097 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 12/27/2024
2 WINTERBOTTOM v. MCDONOUGH

Before DYK, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

HUGHES, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Andrew J. Winterbottom appeals a non-final 

remand order from the Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims. J.A. 1. Mr. Winterbottom seeks review of his 

judicial bias claim and seeks an order recusing the 

veterans law judge in further proceedings. Appellant’s Br. 

8–9. Because, with limited exceptions not applicable here, 

we may not review a non-final order, we dismiss. 

I

Mr. Winterbottom served on active duty from 

September 1993 to September 1997. He was subsequently 

awarded a 30% disability rating for his service-connected 

post-traumatic stress disorder, which was increased to a 

50% rating in October 2017. He appealed this decision to 

the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, seeking a higher disability 

rating. 

In June 2021, Mr. Winterbottom attended a Board 

hearing to assess the scope of his PTSD claim and testified 

concerning his PTSD severity. During this hearing, the 

Board judge asked Mr. Winterbottom several questions 

about specific episodes of violent altercations. See J.A. 61 

(discussing whether Mr. Winterbottom committed 

unprovoked acts of violence during work); J.A. 62–63

(discussing violent altercations in a non-work context and 

whether they were provoked). These exchanges would later 

form the basis for Mr. Winterbottom’s complaint of judicial 

bias, where he alleged that the Board judge displayed a 

lack of impartiality and made a considered effort to 

“minimize [Mr. Winterbottom’s] symptomology.” 

Appellant’s Br. 22. 

In May 2022, the Board denied Mr. Winterbottom a 

PTSD disability rating greater than 50%. The Board 

concluded that the conduct detailed in the hearing 

Case: 23-2097 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 12/27/2024
WINTERBOTTOM v. MCDONOUGH 3

testimony did not warrant a higher rating because 

Mr. Winterbottom’s irritability and violence were not 

unprovoked. Mr. Winterbottom appealed to the Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court). 

Winterbottom v. McDonough, No. 22-4604, 2023 WL 

3735148 (Vet. App. May 31, 2023); J.A. 1. 

Mr. Winterbottom argued to the Veterans Court that 

remand was warranted because the Board failed to 

adequately state its reasons or bases for its decision and 

the Board showed bias at the hearing. J.A. 3. The Veterans 

Court partially agreed and remanded because the Board 

did not adequately explain why it gave decreased probative 

weight to an opinion from a private counselor. Regarding 

Mr. Winterbottom’s bias allegation, the Veterans Court 

concluded that the Board had not exhibited any bias that 

warranted reassignment on remand. Id. The Veterans 

Court said that the questioning did not show bias, but 

instead was an attempt to assess whether 

Mr. Winterbottom’s described violent conduct was 

provoked or unprovoked. Id.

Mr. Winterbottom timely appealed. 

II

Our jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court 

is limited by statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292; Dixon v. 

Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Wanless v. 

Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We are 

vested with authority to “decide all relevant questions of 

law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory 

provisions[,]” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1), and “[w]e review 

statutory and regulatory interpretations of the Veterans 

Court de novo.” Gazelle v. Shulkin, 868 F.3d 1006, 1009 

(Fed. Cir. 2017). We may not review “a challenge to a 

factual determination” or “a challenge to a law or 

regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case,” 

except to the extent that the appeal presents a 

constitutional issue. 38 U.S.C § 7292(d)(2).

Case: 23-2097 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 12/27/2024
4 WINTERBOTTOM v. MCDONOUGH

While 38 U.S.C. § 7292 does not articulate a finality 

requirement, we have declined to review non-final orders 

of the Veterans Court and “concluded that finality is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Ravin v. McDonough, 

107 F.4th 1357, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The exception to the 

finality requirement is narrow. In Williams v. Principi, we 

articulated that we will depart from the strict rule of 

finality when a veteran establishes that: (1) the Veterans 

Court issued a clear and final decision on a legal issue that

(a) is separate from the remand proceedings, (b) will 

directly govern the remand proceedings, or, (c) if reversed 

by this court, would render the remand proceedings 

unnecessary; (2) the resolution of the legal issue adversely 

affects the party seeking review; and (3) there is a 

substantial risk that the decision would not survive a 

remand, i.e., that the remand proceeding may moot the 

issue. 275 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

III

Mr. Winterbottom recognizes that his appeal of the 

Veterans Court’s non-final remand order does not satisfy 

any of the exceptions to the final judgment rule described 

in Williams. Appellant’s Br. 11–12, Appellant’s Reply Br. 2.

Mr. Winterbottom instead proposes, “[t]o this list of 

exceptions should be added another, namely, an appeal 

raising a claim of judicial bias.” Appellant’s Br. 12. We 

decline to extend Williams. 

A mandamus petition is a well-established procedural 

vehicle to raise claims of judicial bias. Other jurisdictions 

have held that seeking recusal of a judicial officer by 

petition for a writ of mandamus is proper. Cobell v. Norton, 

334 F.3d 1128, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (collecting cases). In 

fact, “every circuit to have addressed the issue has found it 

proper.” Id. (citing In re Boston’s Children First, 244 F.3d 

164 (1st Cir. 2001); In re IBM Corp., 45 F.3d 641 (2d Cir.

1995); In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 1995); In re Sch. 

Case: 23-2097 Document: 40 Page: 4 Filed: 12/27/2024
WINTERBOTTOM v. MCDONOUGH 5

Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1992); In re Rodgers, 

537 F.2d 1196 (4th Cir. 1976); In re Faulkner, 856 F.2d 716 

(5th Cir. 1988); In re Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 919 F.2d 1136 

(6th Cir. 1990) (en banc); In re Hatcher, 150 F.3d 631 

(7th Cir. 1998); In re Edgar, 93 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. 1996); 

Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347 (10th Cir. 1995)). 

We see no reason to create a new exception to finality 

that would be inconsistent with how other circuits handle 

judicial bias claims. We are not foreclosing review of 

judicial bias claims—our holding today merely clarifies

that the appropriate procedural vehicle to seek 

interlocutory review of a judicial bias claim is through a 

mandamus petition. Alternatively, Mr. Winterbottom may 

wait until there is an appealable final judgment in his case

over which we have jurisdiction. 

IV

We have considered Mr. Winterbottom’s remaining 

arguments and find them unpersuasive. Because the 

decision that Mr. Winterbottom challenges is a non-final 

remand order and does not meet the Williams criteria, the 

appeal is dismissed. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 23-2097 Document: 40 Page: 5 Filed: 12/27/2024