Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07066/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07066-0/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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

______________________ 

2015-7066

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-4298, Judge Lawrence B. 

Hagel.

______________________ 

Decided: August 11, 2015

______________________ 

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.; DAVID J. BARRANS, LARA EILHARDT, Office 

of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Case: 15-7066 Document: 43-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/11/2015
2 PHILIPPEAUX v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before CHEN, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims denied Mr. Philippeaux’s petition for a writ of 

mandamus, finding that the Department of Veterans 

Affairs had already provided the relief he requested. 

Because we lack jurisdiction to review the Veterans 

Court’s application of mandamus law to the facts of this 

case, we must dismiss Mr. Philippeaux’s appeal.

I 

Mr. Philippeaux served in the Navy from 1972 to 

1980, and in the Air Force from 1984 to 1985. This appeal 

concerns his claims for veterans benefits based on a 

psychiatric disorder, a stomach disorder, and a traumatic 

brain injury. 

In February 1996, Mr. Philippeaux filed a claim for 

service connection for a psychiatric and a stomach disorder. A year later, the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) denied these claims. In July 2008, Mr. Philippeaux

filed a new claim for similar disorders. After considering

additional medical evidence, the VA granted service 

connection for a psychiatric disorder at a 100 percent 

rating, effective July 1, 2008. The VA deferred ruling on 

entitlement to compensation for a stomach disorder, 

explaining that it was awaiting further clinical records. 

Mr. Philippeaux later requested an earlier effective 

date for his psychiatric disorder. In a November 2014 

Statement of the Case, the VA denied his request, concluding that the evidence did not support an earlier 

effective date. 

Mr. Philippeaux filed a separate benefits claim for a 

traumatic brain injury. In 2011, the VA denied the claim, 

Case: 15-7066 Document: 43-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/11/2015
PHILIPPEAUX v. MCDONALD 3

but allowed Mr. Philippeaux to seek further medical 

examination. Mr. Philippeaux filed an appeal to the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals in June 2011. 

On December 15, 2014, Mr. Philippeaux filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Veterans Court. He 

asked the Veterans Court to order the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to (1) vacate the November 2014 Statement of 

the Case issued on his psychiatric disorder claim because 

he did not receive the hearing he requested; (2) issue a 

Statement of the Case on his stomach disorder claim in 

response to his October 2014 Notice of Disagreement; and 

(3) certify his 2011 appeal to the Board concerning his 

traumatic brain injury claim. 

While the mandamus petition was pending, the VA 

held the requested hearing on the effective date of 

Mr. Philippeaux’s psychiatric disorder, after which the VA 

again denied an earlier effective date. The VA also issued 

a 10 percent rating for Mr. Philippeaux’s stomach disorder. Finally, the VA scheduled a medical examination to 

develop the record on Mr. Philippeaux’s traumatic brain 

injury claim, which he failed to attend. The VA reported 

that once the examination was held and the record developed, Mr. Philippeaux would be free to appeal the VA’s 

decision.1 

The Veterans Court denied Mr. Philippeaux’s mandamus petition, finding that Mr. Philippeaux had received 

the relief he requested. The Veterans Court also found

that any further disagreement with the VA’s decision may

be addressed in the normal appeals process. 

1 In March 2015, after the Veterans Court denied 

the mandamus petition, the Board issued a Supplemental 

Statement of the Case denying service connection for Mr. 

Philippeaux’s traumatic brain injury. 

 

Case: 15-7066 Document: 43-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/11/2015
4 PHILIPPEAUX v. MCDONALD

II

Our jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court 

is limited by statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). We may 

review questions of law, but absent a constitutional issue, 

“we may not review challenges to factual determinations 

or challenges to a law or regulation as applied to the facts 

of a particular case.” Harris v. Shinseki, 704 F.3d 946, 

948 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)). 

The Veterans Court has authority to issue a writ of 

mandamus if (1) the petitioner lacks an alternative means 

to attain the desired relief; (2) the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to the writ; and (3) 

the court is convinced that issuance of the writ is warranted. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for 

D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). 

Mr. Philippeaux does not argue that the Veterans 

Court misinterpreted this legal standard, or any other 

statute or regulation. Rather, Mr. Philippeaux contends

that the Veterans Court should not have dismissed his 

petition because the VA did not grant his pending claims

or certify an appeal, and because the VA relied on improper medical records in previous decisions. We do not 

have jurisdiction to review these challenges to the Veterans Court’s factual determination that the VA granted the 

requested relief, or the application of the appropriate 

legal standard to find that mandamus was not warranted. 

And Mr. Philippeaux’s attempt to label his arguments as 

violations of his due process rights is insufficient to raise 

a constitutional question suitable for review. See Helfer v. 

West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To the extent 

that [the appellant] has simply put a ‘due process’ label on 

his contention that he should have prevailed on his 

[claim], his claim is constitutional in name only.”). 

Case: 15-7066 Document: 43-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/11/2015
PHILIPPEAUX v. MCDONALD 5

We have considered Mr. Philippeaux’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit.2 

Accordingly, we dismiss Mr. Philippeaux’s appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED

No costs.

2 We have reviewed Mr. Philippeaux’s submissions 

of supplemental information. We have also considered 

Mr. Philippeaux’s “supplemental complaint” seeking 

additional relief (treated as a motion) and his motion for a 

show-cause order, and find them without merit. We 

therefore deny both motions. 

 

Case: 15-7066 Document: 43-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/11/2015