UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 18-4980

ELAINE R. HANSEN, PETITIONER,

V.

ROBERT L. WILKIE,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, RESPONDENT.

Before BARTLEY, GREENBERG, and MEREDITH, Judges.

O R D E R

On September 11, 2018, the petitioner filed a petition, through counsel, for extraordinary 

relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary to implement a May 30, 2017, 

VA rating decision granting the petitioner substitution for her veteran-husband and awarding 

accrued benefits in the form of special monthly compensation (SMC) based on housebound status 

and to process the award of benefits. Petition at 13. The petition stated that, though the May 2017 

rating decision was initially published in the veteran's eFolder on the Veterans Benefits 

Management System (VBMS), that decision had since been removed from the eFolder. Id. at 3-7. 

The petition also stated that a Statement of the Case (SOC) had been issued on August 8, 2018, 

denying SMC. Id. at 7.

On June 5, 2019, the petitioner amended her petition, asking the Court to compel the 

Secretary to (1) implement the May 30, 2017, VA rating decision; (2) process the award of accrued 

benefits; (3) withdraw the August 8, 2018, SOC; (4) "maintain and ensure the integrity of [the 

veteran's] eFolder on VBMS as well as every other claimant's eFolder on VBMS"; (5) replace the 

May 30, 2017, rating decision in the veteran's eFolder; (6) cease removing documents from the 

veteran's eFolder; and (7) provide the Court with documentation of all actions taken by the 

Secretary with respect to documents in the veteran's eFolder. Amended Petition at 9-10. The 

petitioner added that the August 8, 2018, SOC had been removed from the eFolder. Id. at 4.

The Secretary responded to the amended petition on August 1, 2019. See Secretary's 

Response to Amended Petition. He argued that the May 2017 rating decision was never finalized 

or issued, making its exclusion from the "record in the proceeding" irrelevant to the Board's review 

of the SMC denial. Id. at 27-28. The Secretary concluded that the "removal of the decision[ did] 

not deprive [the p]etitioner of her ability to pursue an administrative appeal of the denial of [the 

veteran's] claim and thus does not deprive her of adequate alternative means to seek her desired 

relief." Id. at 28. The Secretary attached an appendix that included the May 2017 rating decision. 

Id., Appendix at 14-21.

On August 27, 2019, the petitioner notified the Court that, earlier that month, the Board 

had remanded the matter of the petitioner's entitlement to SMC based on housebound status. See 

Solze Notice at 1. The Board requested the agency of original jurisdiction to obtain the May 2017 
2

rating decision, conduct any additional necessary development, and then readjudicate the matter. 

Id. at 6-7.

The Court may issue extraordinary writs in aid of its prospective jurisdiction pursuant to 

the All Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); see also Bates v. Nicholson, 398 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. 

Cir. 2005). A writ of mandamus may be issued only where the petitioner lacks adequate alternative 

means to attain the desired relief, the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to the 

writ, and the Court is convinced that a writ is warranted under the circumstances. See Ribaudo v. 

Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 552, 555 (2007) (citing Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-

81 (2004)).

The Court concludes that the petitioner has not shown that she lacks adequate alternative 

means to attain her desired relief of obtaining an award of accrued benefits for SMC or appealing 

whether the May 2017 rating decision constituted a final decision. The Board has remanded the 

matter to obtain this rating decision, perform any necessary development, and readjudicate the 

SMC matter. The petitioner may appeal any subsequent adjudications, including whether the May 

2017 decision constituted a final rating decision. See DiCarlo v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 52, 56-

57 (2006). The petitioner has thus not shown that she lacks an adequate alternative means to obtain 

her desired relief. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that the petition is DENIED.

DATED: October 8, 2019 PER CURIAM.