Opinion ID: 197420
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mandamus or Other Prerogative Writ

Text: 16 The initial briefs of the parties having failed to address the issue of appellate jurisdiction, the Panel questioned counsel about jurisdiction and allowed the filing of Supplemental Briefs. Appellees acknowledged lack of appellate jurisdiction. In her Supplemental Brief, Appellant argues that in Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 85 S.Ct. 308, 13 L.Ed.2d 199 (1964), the Court recognized what might well be called the 'twilight zone' of finality, id. at 152, 85 S.Ct. at 311, and asks us to take jurisdiction on the ground that otherwise Rosemary Petralia may be forever foreclosed from appellate review of the proof of her [claim of] chronic fatigue syndrome. Supplemental Brief of Plaintiff/Appellant at 4. Although this request in the Supplemental Brief was not in the form of a petition for a prerogative writ, in the interests of assurance of fair process we address the request as if it were so designated. 17 A writ of mandamus must be used stintingly and brought to bear only in extraordinary situations. Doughty, supra, 6 F.3d at 865. To show grounds for such extraordinary relief here, Rosemary Petralia would be required to demonstrate that the remand order was palpably erroneous and that she faces a special risk of irreparable harm. Id. Plaintiff-Appellant has not made this showing since, as noted above, issues regarding her proof of her claim of chronic fatigue syndrome remain effectively reviewable on appeal from a final judgment, after one is ordered and entered. See id. at 866. 18