Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07062/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07062-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Howard W. Newgard
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HOWARD W. NEWGARD,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7062

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-4359, Judge Robert N. Davis. 

______________________ 

Decided: November 10, 2015

______________________ 

HOWARD W. NEWGARD, Spencer, IA, pro se. 

ROBERT M. NORWAY, 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.,

ALLISON KIDD-MILLER. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-7062 Document: 22-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/10/2015
2 NEWGARD V. MCDONALD

PER CURIAM. 

Howard W. Newgard (“Newgard”) appeals from the 

final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims (the “Veterans Court”) denying his 

petition for extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of 

mandamus. See Newgard v. McDonald, No. 14-4359, 

2015 WL 507146 (Vet. App. Feb. 6, 2015). Because Newgard’s arguments challenge only the Veterans Court’s 

application of law to fact, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

Newgard served in the United States Army from January 1969 through October 1969. During training, he fell 

and injured his left knee. As a result, he was hospitalized 

for nearly a month and given a medical discharge. Newgard has sought disability benefits for this injury since 

1970, including appeals of rating decisions, claims of clear 

and unmistakable error (“CUE”), and two prior appeals to 

this court. See, e.g., Newgard v. Shinseki, 565 F. App’x 

879 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Newgard v. Shinseki, 412 F. App’x 

291 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

In December 2012, Newgard submitted a CUE claim 

to the Des Moines, Iowa Regional Office (“RO”), alleging

that the RO committed CUE by denying his original claim 

for disability benefits. The RO responded on July 3, 2013, 

with a letter indicating that it would not act on Newgard’s 

claim because the issues he raised had been previously 

addressed. 

Newgard then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 

at the Veterans Court on December 17, 2014, in which he 

asked the Veterans Court to compel the RO to process his 

December 2012 claim. The next day, he received a 

Statement of the Case from the RO regarding that claim. 

Newgard filed an amended petition in January 2015 

reflecting that he had received the Statement of the Case, 

Case: 15-7062 Document: 22-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/10/2015
NEWGARD V. MCDONALD 3

but insisted that he was still entitled to a writ of mandamus because the Statement of the Case allegedly did not 

address the actual issues raised in his December 2012 

claim. 

The Veterans Court denied Newgard’s petition on 

February 6, 2015, concluding that the RO’s issuance of 

the Statement of the Case rendered the petition moot, and 

that Newgard did not meet the legal requirements for 

obtaining a writ of mandamus because his allegations 

could be addressed through an appeal to the Board of 

Veterans Appeals.

Newgard timely appealed to this court, seeking to invoke our jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292.

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review in an appeal from a Veterans 

Court decision is limited. We may review a Veterans 

Court decision with respect to the validity of a decision on 

a rule of law or the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation that was relied upon by the Veterans 

Court in making the decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). We 

may also review a Veterans Court decision with respect to 

legal questions raised in an appeal that challenge the 

Veterans Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus. Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 

2002). Except with respect to constitutional issues, we 

“may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to 

the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

Newgard does not argue that the Veterans Court misstated the legal standard for evaluating whether to grant 

a writ of mandamus, and does not argue that the Veterans Court interpreted or elaborated upon the meaning of 

any statute or regulation. Instead, Newgard argues that 

the Veterans Court erred in denying his petition because 

the Veterans Court misconstrued or did not address his 

Case: 15-7062 Document: 22-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/10/2015
4 NEWGARD V. MCDONALD

arguments, Appellant’s Br. 6–16, and because he meets 

the requirements for issuance of a writ of mandamus, id.

25–30. The Secretary responds that those arguments 

challenge the Veterans Court’s application of the law to 

the facts of Newgard’s case, which is a matter outside of 

our jurisdiction. We agree. Rather than challenge the 

legal standard applied by the Veterans Court, Newgard’s 

arguments only challenge the manner in which the Veterans Court applied the law to the facts. See 38 U.S.C. § 

7292(d)(2); Payne v. McDonald, 587 F. App’x 649, 651 

(Fed. Cir. 2014). 

Newgard further alleges that his due process rights 

were violated when the RO allegedly deliberately withheld documents relevant to his service and injury. Appellant’s Br. 16–21. The Secretary responds that this 

argument is in substance an attempt to relitigate the 

merits of Newgard’s previously-denied CUE allegation. 

Appellee’s Br. 20–22. 

We consider that Newgard’s constitutional argument 

need not be decided at this point. His claim for benefits, 

including the allegedly withheld documents, is currently 

pending with the RO. Thus, the RO provides an alternative remedy for Newgard’s claims, which makes Newgard’s constitutional argument inappropriate for 

mandamus. 

Newgard also raises arguments regarding the merits 

of his case. The narrow jurisdictional question, however, 

is only whether Newgard has alleged that the Veterans 

Court committed legal error in denying his petition for a 

writ of mandamus. Because he has only challenged the 

manner in which the Veterans Court applied established 

law to the facts of his case, the appeal must be dismissed.

Case: 15-7062 Document: 22-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/10/2015
NEWGARD V. MCDONALD 5

CONCLUSION

We have considered Newgard’s remaining arguments, 

but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, 

the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 15-7062 Document: 22-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/10/2015