Court Opinion

ID: 9895667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 15:00:55.310795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:22.885782
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1819    Document: 18     Page: 1   Filed: 11/08/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                 ROBERT RESENDEZ,
                  Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2023-1819
                  ______________________

      Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 22-4910, Chief Judge Margaret C.
 Bartley, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch, Judge Michael P. Al-
 len.
                  ______________________

                Decided: November 8, 2023
                 ______________________

    ROBERT RESENDEZ, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

     MARIANA TERESA ACEVEDO, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
 sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, L.
 MISHA PREHEIM.
                  ______________________
Case: 23-1819    Document: 18      Page: 2    Filed: 11/08/2023

 2                                   RESENDEZ v. MCDONOUGH

     Before LOURIE, MAYER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Robert Resendez appeals an order of the United States
 Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”)
 denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. For the
 reasons discussed below, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Resendez filed an application with the Department of
 Veterans Affairs (“VA”) seeking service connection for
 hearing loss, tinnitus, and a lumbar spinal condition.
 SAppx * 10–11. On March 13, 2019, a VA Regional Office
 (“RO”) issued a rating decision granting Resendez
 entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and
 tinnitus but denying him service connection for the lumbar
 spinal condition. SAppx 14–18. In a letter dated March
 18, 2019, the RO provided Resendez with notice of its
 rating decision as well as instructions regarding how to
 seek review of that decision. SAppx 19–26.
     On May 21, 2019, Resendez submitted a notice of
 disagreement (“NOD”) challenging the RO’s March 2019
 rating decision. SAppx 32–34. He asserted that he was
 entitled to a higher rating for his service-connected hearing
 loss and tinnitus and that he should have been granted
 service connection for his spinal condition. SAppx 33.
 Resendez submitted his NOD using a form from the VA’s
 legacy claims system rather than a form from the
 administrative appeals system established pursuant to the
 Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of
 2017 (“AMA”), Pub. L. No. 115–55, 131 Stat. 1105. See
 SAppx 32–34.

     *  “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
 with the government’s informal brief.
Case: 23-1819    Document: 18    Page: 3   Filed: 11/08/2023

 RESENDEZ v. MCDONOUGH                                   3

     On July 2, 2019, the VA notified Resendez that his
 NOD had been submitted on an incorrect form, explaining
 that the form he had submitted was for the VA’s legacy
 system and that he should submit his request for review of
 the March 2019 rating decision using the proper form for
 the AMA system. SAppx 42–44. Two weeks later,
 Resendez submitted another legacy form challenging the
 March 2019 rating decision and asserting that he had
 never agreed to be part of the AMA appeals system. SAppx
 45–47. On August 21, 2020, Resendez submitted another
 legacy form alleging that the VA had inappropriately
 rejected his challenge to the March 2019 rating decision
 and further asserting that the VA had rejected his request
 to revise that decision based on clear and unmistakable
 error (“CUE”). SAppx 49–55.
     On November 3, 2020, a representative from the RO
 contacted Resendez by telephone and informed him that he
 needed to use the correct AMA form to contest the RO’s
 March 2019 rating decision. SAppx 57. The representative
 also mailed Resendez the correct AMA form. SAppx 57.
     On January 19, 2021, the VA received another legacy
 form from Resendez. SAppx 58–63. Two days later, an RO
 representative again called Resendez and informed him
 that he had submitted an “obsolete” form and that he
 needed to use the correct AMA form. SAppx 65. On
 January 22, 2021, and May 17, 2021, the RO sent letters to
 Resendez reiterating that he needed to use the correct
 AMA form to contest the March 2019 rating decision.
 SAppx 66–75. The RO included a copy of the correct AMA
 form with the May 2021 letter it sent to Resendez. SAppx
 69.
     In April 2022, Resendez submitted a legacy form
 challenging the March 2019 rating decision as well as the
 VA’s alleged rejection of his motion to revise that rating
 decision on the basis of CUE. SAppx 76–83. On April 18,
 2022, the VA again provided instructions to Resendez on
Case: 23-1819    Document: 18      Page: 4    Filed: 11/08/2023

 4                                   RESENDEZ v. MCDONOUGH

 how to properly challenge a rating decision under the AMA.
 SAppx 87–89. In August 2022, Resendez filed a petition for
 a writ of mandamus in the Veterans Court, arguing that
 the VA had: (1) refused to process his appeal of the RO’s
 March 2019 rating decision; (2) declined to adjudicate his
 motion to revise the March 2019 rating decision on the
 basis of CUE; and (3) “fraudulently” forced him to
 participate in the AMA system. SAppx 1 (citation omitted).
    The Veterans Court issued an order denying
 Resendez’s mandamus petition on November 1, 2022.
 SAppx 1–9. Resendez then appealed to this court.
                         DISCUSSION
     “This court’s authority to review decisions of the
 Veterans Court is circumscribed by statute.” Dixon v.
 Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Absent a
 constitutional issue, we “may not review (A) a challenge 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); see Dixon, 741 F.3d at 1373. These
 jurisdictional limits apply with full force in the context of
 an appeal of a Veterans Court decision denying a petition
 for a writ of mandamus. See Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d
 1154, 1157–58 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
     Mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary remedy
 reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. U.S.
 Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (citation and
 internal quotation marks omitted). A court may issue a
 writ of mandamus only if three prerequisites are met: (1)
 the party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other
 adequate means to obtain the relief he desires; (2) the
 petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right
 to the writ; and (3) the court, in its discretion, must be
 convinced that the circumstances warrant issuance of the
 writ. See id. at 380–81; Wolfe v. McDonough, 28 F.4th
 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
Case: 23-1819    Document: 18      Page: 5    Filed: 11/08/2023

 RESENDEZ v. MCDONOUGH                                      5

     We conclude that the Veterans Court did not abuse its
 discretion or commit legal error in denying Resendez’s
 petition for a writ of mandamus. See Hargrove v. Shinseki,
 629 F.3d 1377, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We turn first to
 Resendez’s argument that he is entitled to a writ of
 mandamus because the VA has improperly attempted to
 force him to participate in the AMA appeals system.
 “Congress enacted the AMA in 2017 to reform the existing
 VA administrative appeals system, which was, by all
 accounts, ‘broken,’ marked by lengthy delays, and plagued
 with a formidable backlog of cases.”            Mil.-Veterans
 Advocacy v. Sec’y of Veterans Affs., 7 F.4th 1110, 1118 (Fed.
 Cir. 2021) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 115–135, at 5 (2017)). By
 its plain terms, the AMA specifies that if a claimant
 receives notice of a VA rating decision after February 19,
 2019, he must file any challenge to that decision through
 the AMA appeals system. See Pub. L. No. 115-55, § 2(x)(1),
 131 Stat 1105, 1115 (2017); see also Mattox v. McDonough,
 56 F.4th 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Here, because
 Resendez received notice of the RO’s rating decision in
 March 2019, he was required to use the AMA appeals
 process to seek review of that decision. See 38 C.F.R.
 § 3.2400(a); see also id. § 20.202(a) (explaining that a NOD
 “must be properly completed on a form prescribed by the
 Secretary”).    Thus, as the Veterans Court correctly
 determined, Resendez was not entitled to a writ of
 mandamus prohibiting the VA from requiring him to use
 the AMA system to challenge the RO’s March 2019 rating
 decision. See SAppx 4–6.
     Resendez further contends that he is entitled to a writ
 of mandamus because the VA has improperly failed to
 process his claim that the RO’s March 2019 rating decision
 contains CUE. Pet. Inf. Reply Br. 2–4, 7. As a preliminary
 matter, we note that the Veterans Court made a factual
 determination that Resendez had never “submitted a
 motion to revise the March 2019 rating decision based on
 CUE.” SAppx 8. As noted previously, we lack jurisdiction
Case: 23-1819    Document: 18     Page: 6    Filed: 11/08/2023

 6                                  RESENDEZ v. MCDONOUGH

 to review factual determinations made by the Veterans
 Court.
     We note, moreover, that the party seeking a writ of
 mandamus must have no other adequate means to obtain
 the relief he seeks. See Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378,
 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that a writ of mandamus
 may not be used as a substitute for an appeal). Because he
 presents no evidence showing that he cannot adequately
 protect his rights by challenging the RO’s March 2019
 rating decision through the VA’s normal appeals process,
 Resendez fails to show that the Veterans Court erred in
 denying his petition for a writ of mandamus.
     On appeal, Resendez appears to allege that he was
 denied due process because the Veterans Court did not
 grant full panel review of the single judge decision denying
 his petition for a writ of mandamus. See Pet. Inf. Reply Br.
 5–6; Pet. Inf. Br. 1–2. Because he provides no meaningful
 explanation of how the denial of full panel review deprived
 him of notice and a fair opportunity to be heard, however,
 Resendez fails to show that his due process rights have
 been violated. See Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290,
 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Due process of law has been
 interpreted to include notice and a fair opportunity to be
 heard.”).    We have considered Resendez’s remaining
 arguments but do not find them persuasive.
                        CONCLUSION
    Accordingly, the order of the United States Court of
 Appeals for Veterans Claims is affirmed.
                        AFFIRMED