THIS VERSION OF THE ORDER INCLUDES TH E JANUARY14, 2010, ERRATA
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 09-0685
R OB E R T W. D RI ES , P ETI TI ONER ,

V
. E RI C K. S H I N SEKI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , R ES PO NDE NT
.

Be fore MOORMAN, DAV I S, and SCHOEL EN, Judges

.

O R D E R On Fe bruar

y 26, 2009, the petitioner, Rober t W. Dries, thr oug h counsel, filed a petition for extraordinary

relief in the form of a writ of mandamus reque sting that this Court order the Sec reta ry t o i m p l em en t the portion of the B oard' s April 9, 2008, decision (doc ket number 08- 1621) that incre ased his disability rating for a skin c ondition to 50% while his a ppeal of that decision re mains pendingat this Court. P etition (Pet.) at 1, 6. The Secre tary responde d on May

19, 2009, asser

ting that filing a Notice of Appea l w ith this Court r ender ed the Boa rd decision nonfi n al an dt h us prec luded VA f

rom implementing the Boa rd' s awa rd of incre ased rating s while the appea l for eve n gre at er ra t i n gs wa s p en d i n g b ef o re t h i s C o urt

. S ec re t ary 's R es p o n s e a t4 -5 (c i t i n g Cerullo v. Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 195, 197 ( 1991)). The Court hea

rd ora l argument on the petition on November 3, 2009, to a ddress the issue of whether the r e is a

ju r is d ic ti o n a l i mp e d im e n t t o V A im p le me n ti n g th e p o rti o no f th e Ap r il 2 0 08 B oa rd de c isi on awa rd ing a pa rt ia l g ra nt of be ne fi ts in the fo rm of a 50 % dis a bil ity ratin g fo r a

sk in c on dit ion fr om De c e mbe r 199 3 to Augus t 20 03 wh e n th e ve te ra n' s a pp e a l of the B oa rd ' s d e nia l in its April 2008 decision of an e ven hig her disability ratingfor his skin condition is pen d i n g befor e the Court. I n her ope ning r emar ks, the Secre tary ' s counsel stated:
I n keepingwith VA' s pro-ve tera n sy stem, the Secre tary

wishes to reiter ate his desire to implement the 50% g rant for the skin disorder f

or De cembe r 1993 to Aug ust 2003. How e v e r , a s s tate d

in th e Se c r e ta

r y ' s s u b s ta n ti v e p le a d in g s , w e b e li e v e th a t t he curr ent jurisprudenc e conc erningjurisdiction a n d interpre tation of jurisdictional statutes prese nts a barr ier that would not per mit jurisdi ction. On Novembe r 30, 2009, wh i l e t h i s petition was still pending bef ore the Court, the parties filed a joint motion f

or par tial remand ( J MR) in the underlying c ase, doc ket number 08- 1621. The Court gr anted the JMR on Decembe r 9, 2009. In the appeal , t h e S ecr etar y also filed a motion for2

le ave to c or

re c t th e B oa

rd de c isi on , s pe c if

ic a lly re qu e sti ng pe rm iss ion to c ha ng e the e ff

e c tiv e date of the a ssignment of

the 60% ra

ting f rom August 30, 2003, to August 30, 2002. The Court gr anted that motion on Decembe r 9, 2009.
Th is C ourt

ha s th e a uth or ity to i ssu e e xtra or din ary

wr its in a id o f its jur isd ic tio n purs ua nt t o the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)

. Se e Cox v . W est , 149 F.3d 1360, 1363- 64 (F ed. Cir. 1998). Howeve r, "[t]he r emedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked on l y i n ex traordina

ry si tu ati on s. " K

e rr v
. U

. S

. D i s t. C ou rt , 4 26 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Thre e conditions must be met befor e a c ourt may

issue a wr it: (1) The petitioner m ust lack a dequate alternative means to attain the desired r elief, thus ensur ing that the writ is not used as a subst itute for the appea ls proce ss; (2) the petitioner must demonstrate a clea r and indisputabl e ri gh t to the writ; and (3) the Court must be convince d, g iven the cir cumstance s, that the issuance of the wr it is warra nted. See Che ney v . U.S. Di st. Cou rt , 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004). The a pproval by

the Cou rt o f t he par

ties' J MR and the Court' s contempora neous entry

of judgme nt and mandate terminated this Court' s jurisdiction over the appe al. B eca use any imp e dim e nt, pe rc e ive d o r o the rw ise , to imp le me nti ngthe B oa rd ' s awa rd of be ne fi ts n o lo ng e r e xists , the Court expects that pay ment will be made pr omptly

. Ac c or din g ly , it

is ORDERED that the petitioner' s Fe brua ry 2 6 , 2009, petition for extraordinar y relief in the fo rm of a wr it o f m and amus is D I SMI SSED a s mo ot. DA TE D: De c e mbe r 1 4, 20 09 PER CU RI AM

.