N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.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.

______________________

Dec ided: November 10, 2015

______________________

B ENJAMIN C. G ODWIN , Glen Burnie, MD, pro se.

J ANA M OSES , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil D ivision, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER , R OBERT E. K I RSCHMAN , J R ., A LLISON K IDD -M ILLER ; Y. K EN L EE , M EGHAN D. A LPHONSO , Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Vete rans Affairs , Washington, DC.GODWIN v. MCDONALD 2

______________________

Before D YK , M OORE , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM 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. W e affirm.

B ACKGROUND In August 2004, Mr. Godwin filed a claim for special monthly compensation for loss of use of a foot. The r egional 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 co mpensation claim and remanded to the regional office to schedule a new VA medical examination

. On March 2015, Mr. Godwin fi led a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Veterans Court , arguing that orde ring a new medical examination was contrary to the c ourt’s June 2013 decision and that the original record was adequate to adjudicate his claim

. The Veterans Court denied Mr. Go dwin’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

D ISCUSSION
The writ of mandamus is a “ drastic and extraord inary ” remedy , appropriate only in “exceptional circu mstances amoun ting 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 sati sfied 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 indispu table; and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circu mst ances. I d.

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 sufficien t 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 furthe r evidence is necessary to decide the [special monthly compensation] claim, he may raise those co ncerns 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
t he Veterans Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for a writ of mandamus.

AFFIRMED

C OSTS

No costs.