UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O . 07-3365
S HAR ON L. Y OUNGMAN , P ETI TI ONER ,

V
. J A M ES B. P EA KE , M.D., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , R ES PO NDE NT
.

On Petition for Ex traordina ry Relief
(De cided June 20, 2008 )

Kenneth M. Carpenter, of Topeka , Kansa s, for the pe titioner.
Paul J. Hutter , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , A ssi sta

nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Ri c ha rd Maye rick , Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Lesli e C. R og all , Se nio r Ap pe llate Attor ne y , a ll of Was hin g ton , D .C. , f

or the re sp on de nt.
Be fore GREENE, Chief Judge , and DAV I S and SCHOEL EN, J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: On November 19, 2007, the petit ioner, through counsel, filed a petition for extraordinary

relief in the nature of a writ of m andamus. I n her capa city as VA- appointed fiduc iary

and c ur a tor of de c e a se d ve te ra n L e e T. Ric ha

rd so n, sh e fi le d a No tic e of Di sa g re e me nt (

NO D) wi th respe ct to a VA le tter dec lining to pay past due be nefits for w hich the vete ran ha d qualified be fore he die d. She no w s e e ks an o rd er fro m th e Co urt d ir e c tin g VAto i ssu e a State me nt o f t

he Ca se (SOC), or alternatively , a de novo decision from a decision revie w office r (DRO) in r esponse to her NOD. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2600 (2007). The petiti oner, without seeking le ave of the Court, filed a

reply to the Secre tary ' s response to he r petition. The Secre tary filed a motion t o s t ri k e t h e p et i t i o n er 's re p l y
. T h e C o u rt wi l l gra n t t h e S ec re t ary 's m o t i o n t o s t ri k e th e p et i t i o n er 's reply

.2

I n an Apr il 2004 deci s i o n , t h e Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (Boa

rd) de termined that the veter an, who ha d been a djudge d incompetent, was entitled to retroa ctive disability compensation for po st- tr a umatic str e ss d iso rd e r, e ff e c tiv e Marc h 1 0, 19 86

. Th e ve te ra n disp ute d th e ini tia l di sa

bil ity rating and the e ffe ctive date s of the stag ed ratings. In M ay 2 0 0 5 , a DRO gra nted the vete ran entitlement to a 100% ra

ting, e ffe ctive Mar ch 1986. Meanw hile, howeve r, VA had suspended pay ment of disability compensation in Marc h 2005 beca use the then- fiduciar

y was not properly

car rying out his duties. On May 12, 2005, the petitioner initiated the proce ss to become the ne w fiducia ry for the ve tera

n. For rea sons not entirely

clea r, the petitioner also soug ht appointment as curator in th e S t ate probate c ourt, which she r ece ived on J uly 15, 2005. VA off

icials supported he r appointment as c urator. A fter th e petiti oner posted a bon d , th e p r o b a te c o u rt i s s u e d le tt e r s o f c u r a to r s h ip o nJu ly

2 8 , 2 0 0 5

. U n f

o rtu n a te ly , th e v e tera n died later that same da

y
. Shortly befor e the ve tera

n' s death in Jul y

2005, the v et er an 's counsel filed a petition for mandamus on his behalf

that soug ht to compel VA to implement the May 2005 DRO dec ision and pa y the awa rd it co nf e rr e d. F oll ow ing the ve te ra n' s death, c ouns e l file d a mo tio n to su bs tit ute Ms. Yo un g man in

the mand a mus pe tit ion . In A ugus t 20 05 , th e Court dis mis se d th e pe tit ion

on the ba sis that it ha d been mooted by the veter an' s death. See Richardson v. Nicholson , N o
. 0 5

- 1 8 8 6 , 2 0 0 5 WL 3312296 (Ve t. App. Aug . 30, 2005). Th e pe tit ion e r ap pe a le d this dis mis sa l to the U. S. Cour t of App e a ls f

or the F e de ra l Cir c uit (F eder al Circuit), which decide d the case on J anuar y 30, 2007. Preliminarily , that court noted that only cer tain enumer ated parties are entitled to r ece ive acc rued benef its to which a v et er an was
e nti tle d at de a th, and ne ith e r the fi du c iary and c ur a tor no r the e state of the ve te ra n is a mon g tho se
enumer ated pa

rties. See 38 U.S.C. § 5121. There fore , the Fe dera l Circ uit a g ree d with the Secre tary that the petitioner lac ked standing to pursue the veter an' s claim, and that the mandamus petition was there fore moot. See R i ch a r d s o n v. Nicholson , 4 76 F .3 d 8 83 , 8 86 (2 00 7) . T he F e de ra l Cir c uit conclude d that "Y oung man ca nnot pursue [ the veteran' s] claim for the same re ason that [the vetera n]

c ann ot– his de a th e xtinguis he d th e e nti tle me nt u po n w hic h th e c a

us e of a c tio n wa s ba se d.

. . . I t is there fore evident that Young man lacks the standing nece ssary to seek a wr i t of mandamus
con cern in g [t he v ete ran's ] cla im ." Id. at 887.3

On or a bo ut Jun e 19 , 2 00 6, pr ior

to t he F e de ra l Cir c uit ' s Richardson decision, Ms. Young man in her c apac ity

as fiducia

ry and cur ator, submit t ed a demand letter to the veter ans ser

vice mana g er seekingpay

ment of the a

war d to which the veteran was entit led before his death. The re g ional office responded wi t h a letter

explaining VA' s rea sons for dec lining the de mand for pa y ment. On September 8, 2006, Ms. Y oung man' s repr esentative responde d with a letter de nominated as a n NOD. On or a b o u t September 17, 2007, the ve tera ns service manag er r esponded w ith a letter that cited the F eder al Circuit' s decision in Ri c ha rd so n, su pra . The letter

took the position t hat the Secre tary maintains befor e thi s Court, that the Fe dera l Circuit had conclusively resolved the issue and there fore the appe al is resolved a s a matter of res judicata. The peti ti o n e r

ar g u e s th a t s h e h a s a

s tatuto r y r ig h t t o anSO C o r

a lt e r n a ti v e ly to a d e n ovo de c isi on fr om a DR O. She a sse rt s that the SOC is a pr e re qu isi te in t he purs uit of he r a pp e llate ri g hts both administratively

and bef ore this Court. This Court has authority to issue extraordinary writs in aid of its jurisdiction pursuant to the All Writ s Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). See Ramsey v. Nicholson , 2 0 V e t.A

pp . 1 6 ( 20 06 ); Cox v . W

est , 14 9 F. 3d 13 60 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 8) ; se e als o M int z v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 277, 281 ( 1994) (" [T] he Se c re tary ' s r e fu sa l to e xer c ise jur isd ic tio n a nd the c omp e tin g int e rp re ta tio ns of [statut or y pr ov isi on s] fo rw ar d edb y

t h e p a r t i e s cl ea rl y

p re s en t s a c as e o r c o n t ro v er s y wi t h i nt h e p u rv i ew o f t h e C o u rt 's jur isd ic tio n. " ). Ho we ve r, " [t]he rem e dy of mand a mus is a

dr a sti c on e , to be inv ok e d o nly in

ex tr aord in ary

si tu ati on s. " Se e Ke rr v . U .S . D ist . Ct

. , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Bef ore the Court may issue a wr it, three c onditions m ust be satisfied: (1) T he petitioner must demonst rate that she lac ks adequate alter

native mea

ns to obtain the desired relief ; (2) the petitioner m ust demonstrate a clea r and indisputable rig ht to the writ; and (3) the Court, in the e x erc ise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropr iate under the circ umstances. Se e Che ne yv . U .S . D ist . Ct

. , 542 U.S. 367 (2004). I n this inst ance , the Court ag ree s that the writ should issue. Given VA's declar ed posi tion on this matter, it is clear that the pe titioner w i l l not obtain the relief soug ht in any other manne r. The pe tit ion e r a lso ha s a c le ar and ind isp uta ble ri g ht to the wr it; the statut or y re qu ir e me nt is that, u

nle ss t h e b e n e f i t s o u g h t i s g r an t e d o r t h e N O D i s w i t h dr aw n , t h e " a g e n c y sh all prepa re a statement of the

case ." 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d) (1) ( emphasis adde d). Ther e is no provision for pre judgingthe merits of the ar g uments raised in the N OD and de clining to i s s u e t h e S OC on that basis. Moreove r, theT h e pet i t i on er ' s pa per s r epe at edl y r ef er t o 38 C. F. R. § 13. 39 a n d a l s o t o 38 C. F. R

. § § 1 9

. 38 a n d 19. 39. 1 B ec au se there are no such reg ulato ry s ec t i o ns p ertaining to a nyt hin g r a is e d i n the p eti t i o n, t he C o urt t ak es these
r ef er en ce s t o be t y pog r aph i ca l e r r or s , a n d be l i ev es t h at t h e pet i t i on er ' s i n t en t w as t o ci t e 38 C. F. R. §§ 13. 58 an d 13. 59.

4 petitioner cites 38 C.F .R. §§ 13.58 and 13.59 (2007), to support her arg ument that she wa s entitled to rec eive pa

y ment as the veter an' s fiduciar y
. These r eg ulations were not considere d by the Court 1 in Richardson . Thus, even if the Secr etar

y wer e cor

rec t that res judicata

could be a

basis for de clining to issue the SOC, it appea rs that res judicata would not be applicable beca use the petitioner is re ly ing on a diffe rent leg al basis to support her c laim of entitlement to pay ment than that re lied upon by the Fe dera l Circuit in Richardson

. I n a ny vie w o f t he ma tte r, ho we ve r, thi s Co ur t ha s no aut ho ri ty

to d e n y th e p e ti ti o n e r th e e xe r c is e o f h e r a p p e ll a te r ig h ts

. T h e r e f

o r e , th e Co u rt is s a ti s f

ie d th a t the reque sted writ is appropr iate under the circ umstances. Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , th e Se c re tary ' s mo tio n to str ike the pe tit ion e r' s r e ply to his response is GRANTED , and the pe titioner' s petition for m an d am u s i s GR ANTED. T he Court order s the Secre tary

to issue an appr opriate SOC in this matter.