NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BENJAMIN C. GODWIN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7099

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-1245, Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley.

______________________ 

Decided: November 10, 2015

______________________ 

BENJAMIN C. GODWIN, Glen Burnie, MD, pro se. 

JANA MOSES, 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; Y. KEN LEE, MEGHAN D. ALPHONSO, Office 

of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
2 GODWIN v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before DYK, MOORE, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM 

Benjamin C. Godwin appeals from a decision of 

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”) denying Mr. Godwin’s petition for a 

writ of mandamus. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In August 2004, Mr. Godwin filed a claim for special 

monthly compensation for loss of use of a foot. The regional office and, on appeal, the Board denied the claim. 

In June 2013, the Veterans Court vacated the Board 

decision and remanded the case back to the Board so that 

it could provide an adequate statement of reasons or 

bases. Specifically, the Veterans Court found that 

“[a]lthough the Board mentioned [a] March 2010 VA 

[medical] examination, it did not expressly discuss the 

[examiner’s] statements.” App. 26. On remand, the Board 

issued a decision finding that the record contained insufficient evidence for it to decide the special monthly compensation claim and remanded to the regional office to 

schedule a new VA medical examination. 

On March 2015, Mr. Godwin filed a petition for a writ 

of mandamus in the Veterans Court, arguing that ordering a new medical examination was contrary to the court’s 

June 2013 decision and that the original record was 

adequate to adjudicate his claim. The Veterans Court 

denied Mr. Godwin’s petition. Mr. Godwin appeals. We 

have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292. See Beasley v. 

Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. 

denied, 134 S. Ct. 679 (2013); Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 

1378, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We review the denial of a 

petition for a writ of mandamus by the Veterans Court for 

abuse of discretion. Lamb, 284 F.3d at 1384. 
GODWIN v. MCDONALD 3

DISCUSSION

The writ of mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary” remedy, appropriate only in “exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power . . . or 

a clear abuse of discretion.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 

542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (quotation marks and citations 

omitted). In order to issue the writ, a court must be satisfied that three conditions are met: (1) the party seeking 

issuance of the writ must have no other adequate means 

to attain the relief he desires; (2) the petitioner has shown 

that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable; and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Id. 

The Veterans Court held that Mr. Godwin failed to 

demonstrate a clear and indisputable entitlement to the 

writ because, contrary to Mr. Godwin’s argument, the 

June 2013 decision “did not declare that the evidence 

already of record was sufficient to decide the [special 

monthly compensation] claim or prohibit the Board from 

engaging in any further development it deemed necessary 

to decide the claim.” App. 2. The Veterans Court also 

stated that “[t]o the extent that Mr. Godwin disagrees 

that further evidence is necessary to decide the [special 

monthly compensation] claim, he may raise those concerns with the VA and . . . challenge any subsequent 

adverse VA decision via the traditional appeals process.” 

App. 2–3 (citing Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380–81). We find no 

error in the Veterans Court’s decision and conclude that 

the Veterans Court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

the petition for a writ of mandamus.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.