Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07100/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Harold W. Van Allen
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HAROLD W. VAN ALLEN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7100

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-1935, Judge William A. Moorman.

______________________ 

Decided: January 12, 2016

______________________ 

HAROLD W. VAN ALLEN, Hurley, NY, pro se.

MELISSA L. BAKER, 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: 15-7100 Document: 25-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/12/2016
2 VAN ALLEN v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, REYNA and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Harold Van Allen appeals the decision of 

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“CAVC”), which denied his petition for writ of mandamus. See Van Allen v. McDonald, No. 15-1935, 2015 WL 

3767103 (Vet. App. June 17, 2015). For the reasons set 

forth below, we affirm the CAVC’s denial of writ of mandamus. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Van Allen served on active duty in the Navy from 

1973 to 1978. In 2006, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (“VA”) awarded Mr. Van Allen service connection 

for his suprasellar arachnoid cyst. In 2011, Mr. Van Allen 

sought “[s]ervice connection for sleep apnea as secondary 

to the service connected disability post-operative residuals 

surgery from malocclusion of [the] seventh cranial nerve 

weakness.” Appellee’s Suppl. App. 9. Mr. Van Allen 

asserted the sleep apnea was a result of mandibular 

setback surgery (jaw surgery) that he underwent in 1975. 

See id. at 26–27. In October 2013, the Albany, New York 

VA Regional Office denied Mr. Van Allen’s sleep apnea 

claim. 

In July 2013, prior to the VA’s denial of Mr. Van Allen’s claim of service connection for sleep apnea, he filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus with the CAVC, “seeking 

the [CAVC] to compel the Albany, New York VA 

[R]egional [O]ffice [] to act on his claims.” Van Allen v. 

Shinseki, No. 13-2235, 2014 WL 266370, at *1 (Vet. App. 

Jan. 24, 2014). The CAVC denied Mr. Van Allen’s petition because he had “obtained the relief requested in his 

petition: VA action on his claims.” Id. at *3. The CAVC 

Case: 15-7100 Document: 25-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/12/2016
VAN ALLEN v. MCDONALD 3

also informed Mr. Van Allen of his right to submit a 

Notice of Disagreement to the Albany, New York VA 

Regional Office. Id. 

On October 9, 2013, the Albany, New York VA Regional Office received Mr. Van Allen’s Notice of Disagreement and ultimately affirmed the denial of his claim 

in April 2015. The Albany, New York VA Regional Office 

noted the “[s]ervice connection was denied because the 

available medical evidence did not show [Mr. Van Allen’s] 

condition resulted from, or was aggravated by, a serviceconnected disability.” Appellee’s Suppl. App. 26. In April 

2015, Mr. Van Allen filed a substantive appeal as to this 

claim. See Van Allen, 2015 WL 3767103 at *1. 

In addition to his substantive sleep apnea appeal, Mr. 

Van Allen filed a second petition for writ of mandamus 

with the CAVC in May 2015. This petition requested that 

the CAVC issue an order directing the Albany, New York

VA Regional Office “to immediately certify the Record on 

Appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals . . . regarding 

his claim of entitlement to service connection for sleep 

apnea as secondary to his service-connected residuals of 

the 1975 in-service jaw (mandibular) setback surgery.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The 

CAVC denied Mr. Van Allen’s petition, noting the documentation submitted with his petition demonstrates “that 

VA has been acting on his claim” and he has “not shown 

that he is entitled to relief at this time because he only 

recently submitted his Substantive Appeal to the Board 

[of Veterans’ Appeals] and has not yet provided the [Albany, New York VA Regional Office] with the opportunity 

to act on it.” Id. Mr. Van Allen subsequently appealed 

the CAVC’s denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. 

DISCUSSION

Mr. Van Allen challenges the CAVC’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus. See Appellant’s Br. 1–2. 

Specifically, he requests that this court issue a writ of 

Case: 15-7100 Document: 25-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/12/2016
4 VAN ALLEN v. MCDONALD

mandamus ordering the CAVC to “consolidate all active 

appeals and reinstate original proceeding appeal 2012-

5012 related [United States Court of Federal Claims] 

case[s].” Id. at 2.

I. The CAVC Did Not Abuse Its Discretion or Commit 

Legal Error in Denying the Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus

We have limited jurisdiction to review decisions of the 

CAVC. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010). This court has “exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide 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) (2012). “Absent a constitutional issue, however, 

we lack the jurisdiction to ‘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.’” 

Wanless, 618 F.3d at 1336 (quoting 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(d)(2)). 

We have held that despite our “limited jurisdiction to 

review facts of a veteran’s underlying claim, . . . ‘[i]t is 

unlikely that [§ 7292(d)(2)] was intended to insulate from 

our review [the CAVC’s] decisions under the All Writs 

Act,’ 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2012), i.e., the relevant law 

authorizing writs of mandamus.” McChesky v. McDonald, 

No. 2015-7089, 2015 WL 8773064, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 

2015) (first and second alterations in original) (quoting 

Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). 

Section 7292 also provides this court 

shall hold unlawful and set aside any regulation 

or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied 

upon in the decision of the [CAVC] that [this 

court] finds to be— 

Case: 15-7100 Document: 25-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/12/2016
VAN ALLEN v. MCDONALD 5

(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law; 

(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; 

(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, 

or limitations, or in violation of a statutory right; 

or 

(D) without observance of procedure required by 

law. 

38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). The “denial by the [CAVC] of a 

petition for writ of mandamus may be reviewed when the 

decision ‘raises a non-frivolous legal question.’” McChesky, 

2015 WL 8773064 at *3 (quoting Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 

F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). “[W]e must determine 

whether the [CAVC] ‘abused its discretion or committed 

other legal error’ in denying mandamus.” Id. (quoting 

Lamb, 284 F.3d at 1384).

Congress has expressly stated that “[t]he Supreme 

Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may 

issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their 

respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and 

principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). However, “[t]he 

remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only 

in extraordinary situations.” Kerr v. United States Dist. 

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

omitted). 

In determining whether petitions for writ of mandamus may be granted, the Supreme Court has articulated

three conditions that must be satisfied:

First, the party seeking issuance of the writ must 

have no other adequate means to attain the relief 

he desires—a condition designed to ensure that 

the writ will not be used as a substitute for the 

regular appeals process. Second, the petitioner 

Case: 15-7100 Document: 25-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/12/2016
6 VAN ALLEN v. MCDONALD

must satisfy the burden of showing that his right 

to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. 

Third, even if the first two prerequisites have 

been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its 

discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.

Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 

380–81 (2004) (internal quotation marks, citations, and 

brackets omitted). 

Mr. Van Allen fails to raise any constitutional issue 

regarding the CAVC’s denial of his petition for writ of 

mandamus. See Appellant’s Br. 1 (checking “no” in response to question three). Rather, Mr. Van Allen contends the CAVC’s decision involved the validity or 

interpretation of a statute or regulation. Id. He failed, 

however, to provide any information beyond checking 

“yes” to question two in his informal brief. 

Mr. Van Allen further indicated the matter was nonfinal, because he was “[s]till awaiting [the Board of Veterans’ Appeals] . . . decision.” Id. at 2 (capitalization omitted). Because that motion remains pending and the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals has not completed its review 

of Mr. Van Allen’s claims, his request fails the first element under Cheney. Put another way, Mr. Van Allen has 

“other adequate means to attain the relief he desires . . . .” 

Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380–81 (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). 

Accordingly, we find the CAVC did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Van Allen a writ of mandamus. 

Mr. Van Allen’s adequate remedy lies with the Albany, 

New York VA Regional Office and the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals. 

CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, the decision of the United States Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims is 

Case: 15-7100 Document: 25-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/12/2016
VAN ALLEN v. MCDONALD 7

AFFIRMED 

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Case: 15-7100 Document: 25-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/12/2016