Court Opinion

ID: 9946243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 16:03:17.186575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:33.164072
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1755   Document: 24     Page: 1    Filed: 02/05/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                 SHIRLEY M. ISAAC,
                  Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

       DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
              VETERANS AFFAIRS,
               Respondent-Appellee
              ______________________

                       2023-1755
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 22-6523, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
 dith, Judge Grant Jaquith, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
                 ______________________

                Decided: February 5, 2024
                 ______________________

    SHIRLEY M. ISAAC, Dallas, TX, pro se.

     PATRICK ANGULO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________
Case: 23-1755    Document: 24     Page: 2    Filed: 02/05/2024

 2                                      ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH

 Before CUNNINGHAM, BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Shirley M. Isaac appeals from an order of the United
 States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
 Court”) denying a petition for writ of mandamus and a sub-
 sequent order denying full court review.            Isaac v.
 McDonough, No. 22-6523, 2022 WL 17951386 (Vet. App.
 Dec. 27, 2022) (“Petition Order”); S. App. 2 (denial of full
 court review). In her mandamus petition, Ms. Isaac asked
 the Veterans Court to compel the Department of Veterans
 Affairs (“VA”) to act on her November 2021 disagreement
 with a June 2021 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”)
 decision. Petition Order at *1. For the reasons discussed
 below, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
                       I. BACKGROUND
     Ms. Isaac is the surviving spouse of veteran James N.
 Isaac. Petition Order at *1. In June 2021, the Board dis-
 missed motions to revise, on the basis of clear and unmis-
 takable error (“CUE”), two prior VA decisions finding that
 the Appellant could not be substituted for her late husband
 because no claim remained pending with the VA at the
 time of his death. Id. at *1. In July and November 2021,
 Ms. Isaac filed two CUE motions expressing her disagree-
 ment with the June 2021 decision. 1

     1    The Veterans Court refers to a November 2021 fil-
 ing styled as a “CUE Appeal.” Petition Order at *1. Before
 the Veterans Court, the Secretary referred to both a July
 2021 CUE motion and an amended December 2021 CUE
 motion. Id. It appears that the November 2021 CUE filing
 is the same as the amended December 2021 CUE motion.
 See Appellee’s Informal Br. 5. We generally refer to the
 filings as the July and November 2021 CUE motions.
Case: 23-1755    Document: 24     Page: 3    Filed: 02/05/2024

 ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH                                        3

      On November 3, 2022, Ms. Isaac filed with the Veter-
 ans Court a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that
 the court compel the VA to act on her November 2021 CUE
 motion regarding the June 2021 Board decision. Petition
 Order at *1. In the Secretary’s response on December 9,
 2022, he apologized for the delay in acknowledging and pro-
 cessing Ms. Isaac’s CUE motions. Id. He also attached a
 letter from the Board to Ms. Isaac dated December 5, 2022,
 “advising her that VA had received her motions and dock-
 eted them, and that the Board would consider them in the
 order in which they were received.” Id. As to the writ,
 “[t]he Secretary argue[d] that VA has taken appropriate ac-
 tions on [Ms. Isaac’s] CUE motions and, as such, she has
 not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to a writ
 of mandamus she seeks.” Id. at *2 (internal quotation
 marks omitted and cleaned up).
     On December 27, 2022, the Veterans Court issued a
 single-judge order denying the petition. Id. at *3. In this
 order, the court considered whether the writ justified the
 “drastic” remedy of mandamus. Id. at *2 (quoting Kerr v.
 U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)). Because the peti-
 tioner alleged unreasonable delay by the VA, the court
 evaluated her petition under the TRAC factors. 2 Id.

    2     The TRAC factors refer to the factors discussed in
 Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. F.C.C.,
 750 F.2d 70, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“TRAC”). Under the
 TRAC factors, “(1) the time agencies take to make decisions
 must be governed by a ‘rule of reason;’” (2) Congress “may
 supply content for this rule of reason” by providing a time-
 table for the agency to act; (3) “delays that might be rea-
 sonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less
 tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake;”
 (4) “the court should consider the effect of expediting de-
 layed action on agency activities of a higher or competing
Case: 23-1755    Document: 24      Page: 4    Filed: 02/05/2024

 4                                       ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH

 Although the Veterans Court found the third and fifth
 TRAC factors “would generally weigh in favor of” Ms. Isaac,
 the court ultimately found that the other factors weighed
 against the issuance of a writ. Id. at *3. As a result, the
 Veterans Court denied the petition. Id.
     On February 8, 2023, a three-judge panel adopted the
 December order as “the decision of the Court.” S. App. 3–
 4. Ms. Isaac then filed a motion for full court review. See
 S. App. 2. In an order dated March 15, 2023, the court also
 denied this motion, finding that Ms. Isaac failed to demon-
 strate that review was “necessary to secure or maintain
 uniformity of the Court’s decisions or to resolve a question
 of exceptional importance.” Id. (quoting Vet. App. R. 35(c)).
 The court then entered judgment in this case. S. App. 1.
 Ms. Isaac timely appeals.
                       II. DISCUSSION
     Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
 Court is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336
 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We may review “all relevant questions of
 law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory
 provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). Unless the appeal pre-
 sents a constitutional issue, we “may not review (A) a chal-
 lenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law
 or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.”
 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). As we explain below, we are with-
 out jurisdiction to address the issues raised by Ms. Isaac’s
 appeal.

 priority;” (5) “the court should also take into account the
 nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay;” and
 (6) the court does not need to find impropriety to determine
 “agency action is ‘unreasonably delayed.’” TRAC, 750 F.2d
 at 80. In Martin v. O’Rourke, the Federal Circuit adopted
 the TRAC factors to assess mandamus petitions asserting
 unreasonable delay. 891 F.3d 1338, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Case: 23-1755    Document: 24      Page: 5    Filed: 02/05/2024

 ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH                                         5

                              A.
     First, we address Ms. Isaac’s appeal as to the December
 order denying her mandamus petition. In Beasley v.
 Shinseki, we explained that we have “jurisdiction to review
 the [Veterans Court]’s decision whether to grant a manda-
 mus petition” when the Appellant “raises a non-frivolous
 legal question.” 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We
 may not consider a challenge to a factual determination or
 the application of law to the facts of Ms. Isaac’s case. Id.
 Notably, we do not discern any non-frivolous legal ques-
 tions that would give us jurisdiction to review the denial of
 mandamus here.
      The authority cited by Ms. Isaac that explicitly ad-
 dresses mandamus also does not demonstrate any error in
 the underlying order. For example, Ms. Isaac cites Wolfe
 v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 1 (2019), rev’d sub nom. Wolfe v.
 McDonough, 28 F.4th 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Appellant’s
 Informal Br. 2. The petition in Wolfe raised a legal ques-
 tion of whether a regulation was contrary to a particular
 statutory provision. 32 Vet. App. at 34–35. In Ms. Isaac’s
 case, there is no colorable argument that the Veterans
 Court’s analysis was contrary to a statute or other author-
 ity.
     Much of the authority Ms. Isaac cites has no clear rela-
 tionship to the denial of her mandamus petition. She cites
 a number of regulatory provisions and case law establish-
 ing that claimants like her have the ability to seek review
 of VA decisions based on CUE. See Appellant’s Informal
 Br. 1 (first citing 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a); and then citing 38
 C.F.R. § 20.1403(c)); Appellant’s Informal Reply Br. 3 (cit-
 ing George v. McDonough, 142 S. Ct. 1953, 1957 (2022)).
 However, the regulations and George do not suggest that
 the Veterans Court committed legal error in its analysis or
 support that the petition for mandamus raises a non-frivo-
 lous legal question.
Case: 23-1755     Document: 24      Page: 6    Filed: 02/05/2024

 6                                        ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH

      Ms. Isaac also cites legal authority supporting the
 proposition that the Veterans Court has jurisdiction to re-
 view a decision of the Board. See, e.g., Appellant’s Informal
 Br. 1 (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a)); id. at 2 (citing In re Cox,
 10 Vet. App. 361, 371 (1997), as amended (Sept. 4, 1997),
 vacated sub nom. Cox v. West, 149 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir.
 1998)). But the Veterans Court did not determine that it
 lacked jurisdiction to address Ms. Isaac’s petition. Petition
 Order at *2–3. Rather, the court determined that the ma-
 jority of TRAC factors did not support the issuance of a
 writ. Id. at *3.
      Ms. Isaac also asserts that the December order con-
 flicts with the October 2020 Veterans Court decision in-
 volving her CUE claim. See Appellant’s Informal Reply Br.
 3 (citing Isaac v. Wilkie, No. 19-8692, 2020 WL 6051167
 (Vet. App. Oct. 14, 2020) (“October 2020 Decision”)). In that
 decision, the Veterans Court vacated the Board’s decision
 because it failed to adequately explain its reasoning and
 remanded to the Board with directions to “proceed expedi-
 tiously.” October 2020 Decision at *1, 5–6 (citation omit-
 ted). The Board responded by issuing a new order denying
 Ms. Isaac’s CUE motion in June 2021. S. App. 11; see also
 S. App. 13 (discussing October Veterans Court decision).
 Ms. Isaac may dispute whether the Board adequately com-
 plied with the 2020 decision in its June 2021 order. How-
 ever, this 2020 Veterans Court decision does not provide
 any basis to challenge the denial of mandamus regarding
 her subsequent CUE motion.
     Lastly, Ms. Isaac cites the Constitution in her briefing.
 Appellant’s Informal Br. 1–2; Appellant’s Informal Reply
 Br. 4. However, we lack jurisdiction over a “claim [that] is
 constitutional in name only,” like the one raised here.
 Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In
 sum, because Ms. Isaac does not raise any non-frivolous le-
 gal question challenging the denial of mandamus, Beasley,
 709 F.3d at 1158, we lack jurisdiction to address her disa-
 greement with the December order.
Case: 23-1755      Document: 24      Page: 7     Filed: 02/05/2024

 ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH                                              7

                                B.
     Ms. Isaac also argues the Veterans Court erred in its
 March 2023 order denying her motion for full court review
 of the December order. See Appellant’s Informal Br. 1–2;
 S. App. 2. Ms. Isaac argues full court review was war-
 ranted because the December order “failed to resolve a
 question of exceptional importance,” Appellant’s Informal
 Br. 2; “is contrary [to] . . . precedent,” id.; and is in conflict
 with the October 2020 decision, Appellant’s Informal Reply
 Br. 3 (citing October 2020 Decision). See Vet. App. R. 35(c)
 (“Ordinarily [motions for full Court review] will not be
 granted unless such action is necessary to secure or main-
 tain uniformity of the Court’s decisions or to resolve a ques-
 tion of exceptional importance.”).
     However, Ms. Isaac again does not identify a question
 of law over which we have jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C.
 § 7292(d)(1). She does not challenge the legal standard the
 Veterans Court applied or argue that the court erred in its
 interpretation of that legal standard. See Appellants’ In-
 formal Br. 2 (citing Vet. App. R. 35(c)). Rather, she appears
 to argue that the court erred in applying this standard. See
 id. We are without jurisdiction to review the application of
 this legal standard to the facts of Ms. Isaac’s case. See 38
 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); Arnesen v. Principi, 300 F.3d 1353,
 1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding lack of jurisdiction to re-
 view a challenge to the Veterans Court’s denial of full court
 review).
                        III. CONCLUSION
     We have considered Ms. Isaac’s remaining arguments
 and find that none raises a non-frivolous legal question
 over which we can assert jurisdiction. See Beasley, 709
 F.3d at 1158. For these reasons, we dismiss Ms. Isaac’s
 appeal.
                          DISMISSED
Case: 23-1755   Document: 24    Page: 8   Filed: 02/05/2024

 8                                   ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH

                        COSTS
 No costs.