Opinion ID: 148412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Gebhart filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus at the Veterans Court in June 2009. The petition referred to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“the Board’s”) “fail[ure] to recognize the receipt of Dpt. Of Veterans Affairs payment voucher from the WACO/AUSTIN, TX, DVA Processing Center of the Financial Management Service of the Philadelphia Financial Center.” Gebhart argued that “[i]njunctive relief can be used resolving and reconciling the unceasing use of a Remand Order.” In response to an order from the Veterans Court that he produce a copy of the contested Board decision, Gebhart filed a single page of a decision. That page appears to be a remand to the regional office on a claim for service connection for a heart disorder based on “the above development.” There is no date on the excerpted 3 GEBHART v. DVA page; however, it does state that the “claim must be afforded expeditious treatment.” The Veterans Court first determined that Gebhart “fail[ed] to satisfy any of the criteria governing the grant of a writ of mandamus.” The court then continued that, because it could not discern what relief Gebhart sought, it was “unable to discern whether issuance of the writ would aid in its prospective jurisdiction and, as a result, must hold that it is without jurisdiction to entertain the petition.” Gebhart timely appealed to this court. His initial brief was rejected for failure to comply with the court rules. A corrected brief was filed after the government had filed its response. A brief titled “Supplemental Merits Briefs [sic] pro se et en banc” attaching information relating to a criminal case against the manufacturers of certain defibrillators was considered to be Gebhart’s reply brief. We have reviewed all of these documents. Our jurisdiction in appeals from the Veterans Court rests on 38 U.S.C. § 7292.