UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 02-1728
K EV I N D AI L EY , P ETI TI ONER ,

V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , 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
(Argued Mar ch 10, 2003 De cided Apr il 10, 2003 )

Ro be rt V . Ch ish olm , of Providence , Rhode I sland, for the petitioner.
Gar y E. O' Connor , w ithwh om Tim S. Mc Cla in , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Ed war d V . Ca ssi dy , J r. , Ac tin g De pu ty

As sis tant G e ne ra l Co un se l, wer e on the plea ding, a ll of Washington, D.C., for the responde nt.
Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and F ARL EY and G REENE, J ud ge s. KRAMER, Chief Judge : Presently befor e the Court is the petitioner' s October 7, 2002, petition for extraordinar

y relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus. For the r easons that f ollow, the Court will deny

the petition.

I. Bac kgr ound I n his petition for a writ of m andamus, filed throug h counsel, the pe titioner reque sts that the Court direct the Sec reta

ry and his employ ees at VA, par ticularly the Chairman of t h e Bo ar d of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls ( B oa

rd or B VA ), to ( 1) a dv a nc e the pe tit ion e r' s c a se on the B oa rd do c ke t in

acc ordanc e with the Ve tera ns' Be nefi t s I m p roveme nts Act of 1994, Pub. L . No. 103-446, § 302, 1 0 8 S t a t

. 4 6 4 5 , 4 6 5 8 ( f

o u n d a t3 8 U

. S

. C

. § 5 1 0 1 n o t e ) ( V B IA ) , a n d ( 2 ) h a n d l e h i s c a s e e x p e d i t i o u s l y. Pe tit ion (P e t.) a t 1. I n th is r e g a rd , th e pe tit ion e r a lle g e s th a t th e Se c re tary ha s f a ile d to c omp ly

wi th2

the VB I A a

nd a pr e vious rem a nd

or de r o f t his Court . Pe t. at 2; see Ex hibit (Ex .) C (Jan. 4, 2001, Court remand)

. I n s up po rt of his pe tit ion , a nd a c c omp a nie d b y c or re sp on din g e xhibi ts, the pe tit ion e r a lle g e s, inter alia, that, in a September 2000 de cision, the Boa rd denie d his claims for ser vice c onnection for mul tip le sc le ro sis (M S) , a ri g ht kn e e dis or de r, a nd c ho nd ro ma la c ia of the le ft kn e e
. Pe t. a t 2; see E x. A. (I t a ppear s from the copy of the B VA dec ision appended to the pe tition t hat the petitioner f iled his fo rm a l c la im f

or be ne fi ts i n Jan

ua ry 19 98 a nd that a VA re g ion a l of

fi c e (R O) de nie d h is c la ims in November

1998. See E x
. A, at 2 , 3.) On a ppeal to this Court of that September 2000 B oard decision, t h e p ar ties ag ree d to a re mand of the pe titioner' s claims in light of the e nactment of the V et er ans C l ai m s A s s i s t anc e A c t of 200 0, Pub. L. N o. 106
- 475 , 114 St at . 209 6 ( see Ex . B) , and the Court, in a J anuar

y 4, 2001, order , vacated the September 2000 BV A dec ision and remande d the petitioner's cl ai m s t o the B oard ( see Ex . C). Pet. at 2. I n a Jul y 17, 2001, decision, the B oard

re mand e d to the RO the pe tit ion e r' s c la ims . Pe t. at 2; see Ex . D (re manding to RO as argued for by petitioner' s counsel). The B VA re mand " specific ally noted that this case [is] entitled to expedited

re vie w und e r t

he VB I A. " Pe t. at 3; see Ex . D at 6. The RO, on January

22, 2002, awa

rded se rvice connec tion for ea ch of the petitioner' s knee disorders a

nd denied service connec tion for MS ; a S upplemental S tatement of the C ase (SSOC ) wa s iss ue d to t

he pe tit ion e r o n Jan

ua ry 23 , 2 00 2. Pe t. at 3; see Ex

. E. The petiti oner filed a Notice of Di sa g re e me nt ( on

F e br ua ry 22 , 20 02 ) a nd a

VAF or m 9, Ap pe a l to the B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls (F or m 9), (o n Fe br

ua ry 27 , 200 2) a s to the de nia l of se rv ic e c on ne c tio n for MS. Pe t. at 3; see E x. F, H. T he RO, on Jul y 1, 2002, issued to the petitioner a Stateme nt of the Case a s to the

se rv ic e -c on ne c te d kn e e dis or de rs ( see Ex

. G), and in a J uly 9, 2002, letter, he notified the R O that he wa s satisfied with the dec ision as to his knee disorders and that he would not se ek further revie w of tho se c la ims ( see Ex. H ). Pe t. at 3. Al so in t hat July 9, 20 02 , le tte r, the pe tit ion e r n ote d th a t, i n Fe bruar y 2002, he had f

iled a F orm 9 an d s tated that, bec ause his MS claim was pa rt of a r emand from this Court, that c laim w as entitled to e x pedited revie w under the VB I A. See Ex. H . O n July 11 , 200 2, the RO iss ue d to the pe tit ion e r an SSO C as to his MS c la im. Pe t. at 3; see Ex . I . I n the

c ov e r l e t t e r a c c o mp a n y i n g t h a t S S O C , t h e R O i n f o r m e d t h e p e t i t i o n e r t h a t , i f h e d i d n o t w i s h to make any additional comment reg arding the i nformation contained i n the SSOC, he should so not ify3

the RO so that his appeal c ould be forw arde d to the BV A without waiting f or the c ustomary

60-day comment per iod to ex pire. See Ex . I . I n a Jul y 16, 2002, letter, the petitioner stated, inter a lia, that he had no further evidenc e to submit and that his MS claim "must now be f orwa rded to the [Boa

rd] for a n expedited [d]ecision pur suant to the VB I A and

. . . Vargas-Gonzalez [ v. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 22 2 ( 20 01 )]. " Pe t. at 3; see E x. J. On Aug ust 20, 2002, the petitioner sent to the Boa rd a letter in w hich he reque sted that the Boa rd "e x pedite" his a

ppeal; he ref

err ed to his J uly 16, 2002, letter to the R O i n wh i ch h e h ad reque sted that his case be ex pedited pursua nt to the VBIA and Vargas-Gonzalez , su pra . Pet. at 3;

see Ex. K . T he pe tit ion e r a lso state d tha t th e B oa rd ' s si le nc e on

his re qu e st w ou ld b e vie we d a s a
re fu sa l to e xpe dit e a nd

wo uld fo rc e him

to f ile a pet it io n for a

wr it o f m a nd a mus wi th t his Court

. See Ex . K. I n an August 30, 2002, letter, Mr. Jim J ensen, D irec tor, Manag ement and A dminist ration (for the B oard) , informed the pe titioner t h at, wit h respe ct to his desire to have his case " advanc ed

on the B oa rd ' s d oc ke t," su c h a dv a nc e me nt r e qu ir e d a sh ow ing of g oo d ca us e purs ua

nt to 3 8 C. F .R. § 2 0. 90 0( c ). Pe t. a

t 3; see Ex

. L

. (I t a

ppear s that, beca

use the petitioner' s Aug ust 20, 200 2 , l etter to the Boa

rd re quested e x pedited re view of his appe al, not BVA -docke t advanc ement, it was the Boa rd that injecte d the adva

ncement conce pt into the inst ant ca se.) Mr. Jensen re quested that the petitioner submit a

ny evidenc e that he ha d to substantiate a showing of g ood cause for a dvance ment and that, if such evidence was not submitt ed, the Boa rd would consider his motion withdrawn and

wo uld c on sid e r his c a se " in its pr op e r se qu e nc e ." Pe t. at 3; see Ex

. L . I n a September 4, 2002, letter addre ssed to Mr. J ensen, the petitioner stated that Mr. Jensen had f ailed to ac count for e ither the VB I A or Vargas-Gonzalez , su pra ; the p eti tioner re quested that, a fter r eadingan enc losed copy of Vargas-Gonzalez , M r. Jens e n g ra nt his " mot ion fo r a dv a nc e me nt on the do c ke t." Pe t. at 4; see E x. M. The petitioner a lso stated that, if he did not rec eive a response to his reque st w ithin 30 day s, he

wo uld a ssume that his mot ion ha d be e n de nie d a nd wo uld fi le a pe tit ion fo r a wr it o f m a nd a mus wi th thi s Court

. Pe t. at 4; see Ex

. M. The petiti oner alleg es t hat he did not rec eive from the B oard a ny response to his request. Pet. at 4. T h e p et i t i o n er , ci t i n g Vargas-Gonzalez , su pra , a rgue s th a t, b e c a

us e the B oa

rd ha s d e nie d h is appea l the "e x peditious treatment" to w hich it is entitled, he ha s a cle ar a nd indisputable rig ht to a

wr it. Pe t. at 4. He fu

rt he r ar g ue s tha t, be c a

us e he tw ic e ha s re qu e ste d tha t the B oa rd " a dv a nc e his4

case on the docke t" a

nd beca use the B oard ha s ref

used those re quests (once by letter, o n ce by silence) , he has e x hausted his administrative re medies. P et

. at 5. He r equests, ther efor e, that the Court iss ue a wr it o f m a nd a mus dir e c tin g the Se c re tary to " e xpe dit e his c la im" in a c c or da nc e wi th the VB I A. Id

. I n a Nove mber 4, 2002, sing le-judg e orde r, the Co u rt o rd er ed the pe titioner to file a memorandum a ddressing whether he has a clear and indisputable rig ht to advance ment on the B oard docket; that is, whether such B VA-doc ket adva nceme nt is a require ment of expeditious treatment pursuant to V BIA § 302 and Vargas-Gonzalez , su pra . The pe titioner, in his November 12, 2002, memorandum, a sserts that his appea l curre ntly befor e the B VA is e ntitled to expeditious revie w and contends that " advanc ement on the B VA docke t is the indisput able mea ns t o ac h ieve a ctual expeditious treatment." Memorandum (Mem.) at 4, 7. The petiti oner arg ues t hat such a dvance ment is consistent with the mandate of the VB I A and is the "only way to effe ctuate the plain terms of the VBI A an d t o car ry

ou t t he [ c] on gress io nal man dat e for ex ped it ed revi ew. " Id

. T h e p e ti ti o n e r n e xt

asser ts that the Boa

rd has r efuse d t o "ex p ed i t e" hi s appea l and consider s his "motion for

a dv anc e me nt" to h a ve be e n w ith dr a wn , th e re by re le g a tin g his a

pp e a l to " the e nd

of the lin e ." Me m. at 4. The pe titioner argues that this stance contr avene s the VB I A and 38 C.F .R. § 20.900(d), which is the Secre tary ' s interpre tation of VB I A § 302 and which the Boa rd is bound to follow. Mem. at 4- 5. The pe titioner also asser ts that, even thoug h the Vargas-Gonzalez Court stated that it wa s not

ca l l ed u p o n t o ad dre s s wh at ex p ed i t i o u s t re at m en tre qu i re s , t h e C o u rt d i d s t at e t h at t h e S ec re t ary 's du ty to pr ov ide a re mand e d cla im wit h an a c c e le ra

te d doc ke t numb e r p ur su a nt t o th e VB I A w a s a
m i n i s t er i al d

u t y , n o ta d i s cr et i o n ary d

u t y
. M em
. at 6 (c i t i n g Vargas-Gonzalez , 15 Vet.App. at 231). The petitioner finally asser ts that the Court, in Vargas-Gonzalez , implied that defining expeditious tr e a tme nt m

us t in c lud e c on sid e ratio n o f wh a t duty ne e ds to be pe rf or me d in or de r to g ive e ff

e c t to VB I A § 302. Id

. The petitioner argues that, there fore , expeditious treatment r equire s advanc ement

on the B oa rd do c ke t. On J anu a r

y 2 , 2 0 0 3 , th e Se c r e ta

r y r e s p o n d e d to a D e c e mb e r 2 0 0 2 Co u rt o r d e r that had dir e c te d h im t o a

ns we r t he pe tit ion

a nd to r e ply to t he pe tit ion e r' s N ov emb e r 2 00 2 me mor a nd um. Th e Se c re tary

a sse rt s th a t th e pet it ione r h a s n ot d e mon str a te d a c le a r a nd ind isp uta

ble ri g ht t o advanc ement on the B oard doc ket. I n this reg ard, the Secre tary contends that, inter a lia, the5

petitioner has not cited any statute or re g ulation that give s him such a rig ht. Specifica lly , he explains that neither section 7107(a) (1), the V BIA, nor § 20.900(d) mentions advanc ement, and the petitioner has not relied on section 7107(a)(2) or § 20.900(c) (or attempted to satisfy that regulatory subsection, wh ic h doe s me nti on

a dv a nc e me nt, by

sh ow ingg oo d c a

us e ). Re sp on se (R e sp .) a t 5- 6, 13 . With respe ct to Vargas-Gonzalez , the Secre tary asser ts that the Court's ref

ere nce to a

n "a cce lerated docke t number" is a cry

ptic and isolated sentenc e and that the VB I A does not mention an a cce lerated docke t number. Resp. at 6. The S ecr etar y also contends that, because the petitioner' s MS claim has been

a ssi g ne d to a

B oa rd me mbe r a

nd c ur re ntl y is b e ingpr oc e sse d, the pe tit ion is m oo t. A s to moo tne ss, the Secr etar

y more spec ifically asser

ts (and provides supporting exhibi ts) that, on Aug ust 7, 2002, the claim wa s assig ned to a B VA member ( see Resp. Ex . A); on Aug ust 12, 2002, that Boa rd

me mbe r c omp le te d a

De ve lop me nt M e mor a nd um a nd se nt t he c a se to t

he B oa rd ' s D e ve lop me nt U nit ( see Resp. Ex . B) ; and on Novembe r 27, 2002, the petiti oner and his counsel we re notified by letter of the B oa rd ' s d e ve lop me nt e ff

or ts ( see Resp. Ex . C). Resp. at 13. The c ase w as submitted to the instant panel, and ora l argument was hear d on Marc h 10, 2003. At oral arg ument, the S ecr etar y clar ified his position t hat B VA-doc ket adva nceme nt (g overne d by 3 8 U

. S

. C

. § 7 1 0 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 3 8 C

. F

. R

. § 2 0

. 9 0 0 ( c ) ) a n d e x p e d i t i o u s t r e a t m e n t ( g o v e r n e d b y t h e V B IA and 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(d) ) ar e distinct conce pts and methods of prioriti zing cases pending befor e the Boa rd. As to B VA-doc ket advanc ement, the Secre tary maintains that, bec au s e i n s eeking extraordinary

relief the petitioner e rrone ously equate d advanc ement with ex pedited re view, the petitioner has not shown a clea r and indisputable r ight to a wr i t

. As to expediti ous treatment, the Secre tary contends that the pe titioner has not de monstrated that the Boa rd has not handle d his appea l expeditious ly ; specifica lly , he has not pointed to any specific proce dure s t h at t h e BV A has not followed. The Secre tary

reque sts that, therefor e, the Court deny the petition. On April 2, 2003, the pe titioner filed an unoppose d motion "to add to the re cord." To that motion, the pe titioner has appe nded (1) a copy of a Ma rch 27, 2003, le tter fr om the Boa rd re g arding

new e vidence that the B VA would conside r in rea djudicating the petitioner' s MS claim and his right to respond to that evidenc e; (2) c opies of the e vidence ref err ed to in and attac hed to the B VA' s letter;

and (3 ) h is A pr il 1 , 2 00 3, re sp on se to t he B oa rd in w hic h h e, in ter ali a, a g a in d e mand e d th a t hi s claim be tre ated e x peditiously . The Court will g rant the pe titioner' s motion.6 II. Ana lys is This Court ha s authority to issue ext raor dinary writs in aid of its jurisdiction pursuant to the A ll Wr it s A c t, 2 8 U

. S. C. § 1 6 5 1 ( a ). See Cox v . W est , 149 F.3d 1360 ( Fe d. Cir. 1998). Howe ver, "[ t] he re med y

of m and amu s i s a d ras ti c on e, t o b e in vo kedon ly in ex tr aord in ary

si tu ati on s. " Ke rr v. Un ite d S tat es D ist . Co ur t , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). B efor e a c ourt may issue a wr it, a petitioner must demonstrate (1) a clea r and indisputable rig ht to the writ and (2) a lac k of ade quate a lternative means to obtain the re lief soug ht. See E rspamer v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 3, 9 (1990). A petitioner must satisfy both prong s in order to obtain ext raor dinary

relief

. See H errmann v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 6 0 , 6 2 (1 9 9 5 ) ( ap p l y i n g Ke rr " tw o- pr on g te st" ); Erspamer , su pra (same)

. The statutory section g overning the docketing of appe als to the Boa rd provides in pe rtinent pa rt : (a)(1 ) Ex cep t a s p ro vid e d[, i nte r a lia ,] in pa ra g ra ph [] (2 ) .

. . , e a c h c a se rec eived pur suant to application for revie w on appe al shall be c onsidered and dec ided in r e g ula r o rd e r a c c or din g to i ts p la c e up on the do c ke t. (2) A c ase r efe rre d to in para g raph (1) m ay , for c ause shown, be advanc ed on mot ion fo r ea rl ie r co ns ide ratio n a

nd de te rm inatio n. Any

su c h mo tio n s ha ll s e t f

or th succinc tly the g rounds upon which the motion is based. Such a motion m ay be g r an t e d o n l y – (A ) i f the c ase involves inter pretation of law of g ener al application a ff e c tin g oth e r c la ims ; (B ) if the a

ppellant is seriously

il l or is under se vere financ ial hardship; or (C) for other g ood cause shown. 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(1) , (2). Wit h respe ct to rema

nded cla ims, the VBIA provides that [t ]he Secreta

ry
. . . shall take such actions as may be necessar y to provide for the expeditious t reatment, by the B oard .

. . and by the [R Os] . . . , of any claim that has bee n rema

nded by the B oard . . . or

by the United States Court o f [ Appeals for Veter ans Claims] for a dditional development or other appropr iate ac tion. VB I A § 302. The S ecr etar

y has implemented in a r eg ulation both section 7107(a) (1) a nd (2) a nd the VB I A. Th a t r e g ulatio n, in p e rt ine nt p a rt , p ro vid e s:7 (a) Do c k e tin g o f ap pe als

. Ap pli c a tio ns fo r re vie w on ap pe a l ar e do c ke te d in the orde r in which they are rec eived. Cases re turned to the B oard f ollowing a ction purs ua nt t o a re mand a ssume the ir

or ig ina l pl a c e s o n th e do c ke t.

. . . . (c) Advanc eme nt on the docke t . A ca se may be adva nced on the docket on the motion of . . . a party

to the case before t h e Bo ard, or such par ty ' s repr esentative. Such a moti o n m ay

be g rante d only

if the ca se involves interpre tation of law of g ener al application affe cting other c laims, if the appellant is ser iously ill or is under sever e fina

ncial har dship, or if other suff icient ca use is shown. " Other suf ficient cause " sha ll i n cl u d e, but is not l imited to, adminis trative e rror resulting in a signific ant delay

in docketing the ca se. . . . (d) Con sid

e ra tio n o f a p p e als re ma nd

e d b ytheUn ite d S

tat es Co ur t of

Ap pe als for Veterans Claims . A ca se re manded by the Uni t ed S tates Court of Appe als for Veter ans Claims for additional deve lopment or other ap propriate action will be tr e a te d e xpe dit iou sly

by the B oa rd wi tho ut r e g a rd

to i ts p la c e on the B oa

rd ' s d oc ke t. 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(a) , (c) , (d) ( 2002). W i t h re s p ect to the B oard' s adjudication of a n appea l from an a dverse RO decision, such appea l ge nera lly

is considere d by

the B VA ac cording to the appea l's doc ket number. See 38 U. S.C. § 7107(a) (1); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(a ). Howe ver, pr ior to the p as s age o f t h e VBI A and c ontinuing since that time, there has bee n an exception to this doc ket-orde r consider ation for spe cial ca ses. See 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) (providing g rounds fo r ad v an ce m ent). Com pa re 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (1994) ( providing g rounds for a dvance ment), with 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2002 ) (to same eff ect)

. Wit h the ena ctment, on Novembe r 2, 1994, of the V BIA, another cate g ory of spe ci al case s was
cre ated , an d t h e S ecr etar y amende d his reg ulation to recog nize that second categ ory
. See V B IA § 3 02 (p r o v i d i n g f

o r e xp e d i t i o u s t r e a t m e n t o f r e m a n d e d c l a i m s ) ; 3 8 C

. F

. R

. § 2 0

. 9 0 0 ( d ) ( t o s a me
e f f e c t) ; se e als o Ap pe a ls R e g ulatio ns , Ru le s o f P ra c tic e : Sin g le Me mbe r a nd Pane l D e c isi on s; Re c on sid e ratio ns ; O rd e r o f C on sid e ratio n, 61 F e d. Re g . 2 0, 44 7, 20 ,4 48 , 2 0, 45 3 ( Ma y 7, 19 96 ) ( fi rs t codified at 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(d) (1996) ). This historical prog ression cl ea rl y d emonstrates that advanc ement on the B oard doc ket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a) (2) a nd 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) and expeditious treatment pursuant to VB I A § 302 are separ ate and distinct conce pts. The Court thus holds that the phrase "e x peditious treatment" in VB I A § 302 does not require that rema nded ca ses be adva nced on the docket pur suant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c ).8

Th e re fo re , to the e xten t tha t the pe tit ion e r is r e qu e sti nga dv a nc e me nt o n th e B oa rd do c ke t, g iv e n th e a bove holding and notwithstanding any lang uag e in Vargas-Gonzalez , su pra , the petitioner is not entitl ed to adva

nceme n t on the B oard doc ket, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a) (2) a nd 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) , of his MS claim simpl y beca use that cla im previously was re manded. Mo re ov e r, the pe tit ion e r ha s no t de mon str a te d that he oth e rw ise is e nti tle d to have his MS c la im advanc ed on the B VA docke t beca use he ha s not shown that he sati s fi es an y of the a dvance ment criter i a as l isted in the g overningstatute and re g ulation. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 7( a )( 2) ; 38 C.F .R. § 20.900(c)

. To the e xten t th a t th e pe tit ion e r i s se e king e xpe dit iou s tr e a tme nt o f h is r e mand e d c la im, pursuant to sec ti o n 3 0 2 of the VB I A and 38 C.F .R. § 20.900(d), sepa rate from B VA-doc ket advanc e me n t, h e h a s n o t d e mo n s tr a te d a c le a r a n d in d is p u ta b le r ig h t to a w r it b e c a

u s e h e has not shown that the Boa

rd has failed to ha

ndle his c laim e x peditiously

. I n this re g ard, a s ref lected by the exhibi ts appende d to the petitioner' s October 2002 petition and the Secr etar y ' s J anuar

y 2003

re sp on se , th e pe tit ion e r' s MS c la im w a s a ssi g ne d to a B oa rd me mbe r t

we nty -s e ve n d a y s a ft e r t

he RO issued to the petitioner an SSOC on that claim. Com pa re Pet. Ex . I (J u l y 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 , SSOC ), with Re s p
. E x
. A (A u g ust 7, 2002, assignme nt to Boar d member) . Fur ther, five day s after

having the petitioner' s appea l assigne d to him, the BVA m ember to whom the appe al was a ssigne d completed

a Deve lopment Me morandum and sent the c ase to the B oard' s Deve lopment Unit. See Resp. Ex . B (August 12, 2002, development re quest). More over, a s evidenc ed b y the petitioner' s April 2003 mot ion and a tta c hme nts , th e B oa

rd ha s c omp le te d its de ve lop me nt a nd a pp e a rs re a dy

to r e a dju dic a te his MS c la im. I n th a t r e g a rd , the C ou rt fi nd s it ine xplic a ble wh y , if

VAtr e a ts c a se s e nti tle d to docket a dvance ment and ca ses entitled to expedited reviewas entire ly separ ate c atego ri es for adjudication purpose s, it would send a letter to the petitioner telling him that his c ase could not be advanc ed whe re he had re quested only expedited reviewof th at case
. Com pa re Pet. Ex . K (petitioner' s letter to B oard r equesting "e x pedited" revie w), with Pe t. Ex

. L(B oa rd ' s le tte r t o petitioner outlining g rounds for "a dvance ment" on BV A docket). Fur ther, notwithstanding that the petitioner has not demonstrated that his MS claim has been de nied exp ed i t i o u s treatment, if V A simply had notified him of the assig nment of hi s case to a Board member and of t he deve lopment

re qu e ste d b y

tha t B oard me mbe r w he n th e pe tit ion e r r e qu e ste d e xpe dit e d r e vie w, ra the r t ha n s o9

notify ing him only

subsequent to the petitioner' s filing of the instant pe tition, proceeding s befor e the C o u rtm ay n o th a v e b e e n n e c e s s a r y. The Court also would be r emiss if it did not note the following . Section 7107(a) (1) appar ently

was implemented by

§ 20.900(a) , which advises how cer tain cate g ories of ca ses (orig inal appea ls and rema

nded cas es ) ar e t o be adde d to the Boa rd' s docket. B eca

use VB I A § 302 was

enac ted and its implementing r eg ulation was promulg ated a lmost 30 y ear s after section 7107(a ) wa s implemented by

regulation ( see 3 8 C.F.R. § 19.122(b) ( 1965) (doc keting of appe als in remande d

c a se s) ; se e als o 38 C.F .R. § 1 9. 10 6 ( 19 90 ) ( same )) , th e Se c re tary ' s me re c omp lia nc e wi th § 20.900(a) , i.e., g iving a

rema nded ca se the BV A docket number assig ned to it when the c ase w as
on appea l to the BV A orig inally , does not a ppear to e qual expeditious treatment. See Me e k s v . W est , 12 Ve t.A pp . 3 52 , 3 54 (1 99 9) (e a c h p a rt or se c tio n o f s ta tut e sh ou ld b e c on str ue d in c on ne c tio n w ith

ever y ot h er p ar t or sec tion so as to produce ha rmonious whole). In this reg ard, the Court further

no te s th a t, al tho ug h at or a l ar g ume nt co un se l for the Se c re tary a llu de d in ge ne ra l ter ms t o s pe c if

ic proce dures that ha

ve bee n develope d by

VA to ens u re that remande d case s rec eive e x peditious treatment, the Secre tary

failed to e x plicate those pr ocedur es either i n h i s p l eading or at ora l

argume nt. Neve rtheless , the Court conclude s that the petitioner has f ailed to show a c lear

and indi s p u t able right to a w rit on either g round soug ht. The Court thus will deny the instant petition be c a us e the pe tit ion e r h a s f

a ile d to satis fy

the fi rs t pr on g fo r t

he iss ua nc e of a writ of

mand a mus
. See H errmann and Erspamer , both su pra .

III. Conclusi on The pe titioner' s April 2, 2003, motion is g rante d. Upon consider ation of the for eg oing analy sis, the parties' pleading s, and ora l arg ument, the petitioner' s October 7, 2002, petition for extraordinary

relief in the nature of a w rit of mandamus is DENI ED.