Court Opinion

ID: 9838861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 15:01:06.642165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:18.744150
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1439     Document: 20     Page: 1   Filed: 09/08/2023

          NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                RICHARD A. PROCEVIAT,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                              v.

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

                         2023-1439
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-5432, Chief Judge Margaret C.
 Bartley, Judge Michael P. Allen, Judge Scott Laurer.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: September 8, 2023
                   ______________________

       RICHARD A. PROCEVIAT, Elma, Manitoba, Canada, pro
 se.

     ELINOR JOUNG KIM, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, Office of
Case: 23-1439    Document: 20     Page: 2    Filed: 09/08/2023

 2                                 PROCEVIAT v. MCDONOUGH

 General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
 Affairs, Washington, DC.
                  ______________________

     Before PROST, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Richard A. Proceviat appeals an order of the U.S. Court
 of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) dismiss-
 ing in part and denying in part his petition for a writ of
 mandamus. For the reasons below, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Mr. Proceviat served in the U.S. Army from June 1970
 to February 1972 and is a veteran of the Vietnam Era.
 Mr. Proceviat seeks service connection for rheumatoid ar-
 thritis (“RA”). In September 2016, Mr. Proceviat sought to
 reopen a previous denial of service connection for RA. In
 connection with his re-opened claim, in March 2018 the De-
 partment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) provided Mr. Proceviat
 with a medical examination. Based on the results of that
 examination, the VA Regional Office (“RO”) determined
 that Mr. Proceviat’s RA “was not incurred in or aggravated
 by military service.” S.A. 93. 1 The VA denied his claim on
 April 2, 2018.
     In January 2019, Mr. Proceviat filed a notice of disa-
 greement. Objecting to the VA medical examiner’s opinion,
 Mr. Proceviat sought copies of the examiner’s curriculum
 vitae (“CV”), the examination notes, and “the specific med-
 ical literature that was relied upon in the VA examiner’s
 negative nexus opinion.” S.A. 89. He also requested an
 independent medical opinion (“IMO”). S.A. 91.
    After receiving no response over a year and a half later,
 on July 27, 2020, Mr. Proceviat petitioned the Veterans

     1   “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix submit-
 ted with the government’s informal brief.
Case: 23-1439    Document: 20     Page: 3    Filed: 09/08/2023

 PROCEVIAT v. MCDONOUGH                                    3

 Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the VA to address
 his unfulfilled requests: namely, to provide the requested
 CV, examination notes, medical literature, and IMO. S.A.
 85–86. The Veterans Court ordered the VA to respond.
 The Secretary accordingly provided Mr. Proceviat with the
 medical examiner’s CV but did not address any of his other
 requests. The VA nonetheless argued its response ren-
 dered the mandamus petition moot. S.A. 83.
     On September 23, 2020, the Veterans Court agreed and
 dismissed Mr. Proceviat’s mandamus petition. S.A. 76–77.
 On October 26, 2020, Mr. Proceviat sought reconsideration,
 noting that he had requested more than the examiner’s CV
 alone. S.A. 73–75. On reconsideration, the Veterans Court
 withdrew its September 2020 order and directed the VA to
 address the outstanding requests. S.A. 70–72. The VA
 mailed Mr. Proceviat a letter stating that no examination
 notes exist and provided Mr. Proceviat with a link to a gen-
 eral online repository of medical literature. S.A. 63. The
 court deemed this response sufficient. On December 17,
 2020, it dismissed this portion of the mandamus petition,
 and it additionally denied the petition with respect to the
 IMO request because Mr. Proceviat could seek an IMO
 through the ordinary appellate process. S.A. 58–60. A
 three-judge panel adopted the single-judge order. S.A. 47–
 48.
     On September 16, 2021, this court vacated and re-
 manded to the Veterans Court. Proceviat v. McDonough,
 Case No. 2021-1810, 2021 WL 4227718 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16,
 2021). We held that the Veterans Court erred in dismiss-
 ing the petition as moot because the VA had not provided
 Mr. Proceviat with the specific medical literature relied on
 by the examiner, and therefore, he “ha[d] not been provided
 all his requested relief.” Id. at *2. Regarding Mr. Proce-
 viat’s IMO request, we determined that the petition could
 have been requesting either “a writ compelling the VA to
 provide him an [IMO],” or it “may have been requesting a
 writ compelling the VA to issue a decision on his request
 for an [IMO].” Id. at *3. While there was no legal error
Case: 23-1439     Document: 20     Page: 4    Filed: 09/08/2023

 4                                   PROCEVIAT v. MCDONOUGH

 under the first interpretation, “the Veterans Court failed
 to apply the correct legal framework under the second in-
 terpretation.” Id. We explained that “[w]hen a mandamus
 claim is based on unreasonable delay, the Veterans Court
 must apply the six-factor [TRAC] test,” and failure to do so
 is legal error. 2 Id. at *2. Our decision remanded for the
 Veterans Court to apply the TRAC factors to the unreason-
 able delay claim. Id. at *3.
     On remand, the VA provided a series of updates on its
 response to Mr. Proceviat’s requests, including its response
 to a new request made in a February 2022 supplement to
 the petition, see S.A. 31, requesting the pre-opinion instruc-
 tions provided to the medical examiner:
     (1) the medical literature on which the March 2018
     VA examiner relied no longer exists in any format
     and no one has a copy of the material; (2) petitioner
     was notified on February 7, 2022, that his request
     for an IMO was denied; (3) on March 22, 2022, pe-
     titioner “expressed disagreement” with VA’s denial
     of his request for an IMO; (4) petitioner was pro-
     vided a copy of the March 2018 VA examiner’s “pre-
     opinion” instructions; (5) petitioner’s appeal con-
     cerning his claim for service connection for rheu-
     matoid arthritis will continue to proceed as a
     legacy appeal at the Board; and (6) petitioner’s ap-
     peal was “formally placed on the Board’s docket on
     August 11, 2020.”
 S.A. 11–12. Based on these updates, on September 20,
 2022, the Veterans Court issued an order that dismissed in

     2   The “TRAC” factors stem from a decision in Tele-
 communications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750
 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984), which we adopted as the appro-
 priate standard for assessing mandamus petitions alleging
 unreasonable delay, Martin v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338,
 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Case: 23-1439    Document: 20      Page: 5    Filed: 09/08/2023

 PROCEVIAT v. MCDONOUGH                                     5

 part and denied in part the mandamus petition.          S.A.
 10–15.
      The Veterans Court dismissed as moot the CV, exami-
 nation notes, IMO, and pre-opinion instruction requests.
 S.A. 13. The court denied the petition as related to medical
 literature because that information is no longer obtainable
 and “if petitioner wishes to contest the adequacy of the
 March 2018 VA examination report relying on the fact that
 the underlying medical literature cannot be found, that is
 an issue that he can raise either during the administrative
 appeal process or in an appeal to this Court of an adverse
 Board decision relying on that evidence.” S.A. 13. Finally,
 regarding potential unreasonable delay in addressing
 Mr. Proceviat’s IMO request, the court considered the
 TRAC factors and concluded “they do not weigh in peti-
 tioner’s favor.” S.A. 14–15. A three-judge panel adopted
 the single-judge order. S.A. 2–3. Mr. Proceviat appeals.
                         DISCUSSION
     Although this court has limited jurisdiction to review
 decisions of the Veterans Court, 38 U.S.C. § 7292, we may
 “decide all relevant questions of law, including interpreting
 constitutional and statutory provisions,” Mote v. Wilkie,
 976 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting 38 U.S.C.
 § 7292(d)(1)). Mootness is a question of law that falls
 within our jurisdiction. We also have jurisdiction to review
 the Veterans Court’s decision “whether to grant a manda-
 mus petition that raises a nonfrivolous legal question.”
 Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
                               I
      We agree with the Veterans Court that Mr. Proceviat’s
 requests for the medical examiner’s CV, notes from the
 March 2018 examination, and the examiner’s pre-opinion
 instructions have each been rendered moot. A case be-
 comes moot when a claimant receives all his requested re-
 lief. Mote, 976 F.3d at 1341. We conclude that Mr.
Case: 23-1439     Document: 20      Page: 6   Filed: 09/08/2023

 6                                   PROCEVIAT v. MCDONOUGH

 Proceviat has now received adequate responses to his re-
 quests.
     First, the VA has provided Mr. Proceviat with the CV
 for the medical examiner who performed his March 2018
 examination. S.A. 80. Because he received the requested
 CV, this issue is moot. Second, with respect to the exami-
 nation notes, the VA explains that “any notes that the ex-
 aminer made were provided in the medical opinion itself,”
 and “there are not any additional notes from the March
 2018 examiner.” S.A. 63. As Mr. Proceviat received all rel-
 evant notes as part of the medical opinion and the VA has
 no knowledge or possession of any additional notes made
 by the medical examiner in relation to the March 2018
 exam, this issue is also moot. Third, the record reflects that
 Mr. Proceviat received the pre-opinion instructions given
 to the medical examiner. S.A. 31–32. Mr. Proceviat’s re-
 ceipt of the pre-opinion instructions renders this request
 moot as well.
     We affirm the Veterans Court’s determination that
 Mr. Proceviat received his requested relief in relation to
 these requests.
                               II
     Mr. Proceviat principally argues on appeal that an
 IMO is required for the VA to decide his service-connection
 claim and that “[t]he proper remedy for an inadequate
 exam is for the Board to remand the case with an order for
 the VA to provide an adequate exam or explain why it will
 not or cannot do so.” Informal Br. 4, 6 (citing 38 C.F.R.
 § 3.328; 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 U.S.C. § 7109; 38 C.F.R.
 § 20.901(a), (d); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311
 (2007)). We recognized in our prior opinion that Mr. Proce-
 viat’s petition could be interpreted either as “requesting a
 writ compelling the VA to provide him an [IMO]” or as “re-
 questing a writ compelling the VA to issue a decision on his
 request for an [IMO].” Proceviat, 2021 WL 4227718, at *3.
Case: 23-1439     Document: 20     Page: 7    Filed: 09/08/2023

 PROCEVIAT v. MCDONOUGH                                      7

     Regarding the first interpretation, which appears to be
 Mr. Proceviat’s primary focus in this appeal, we previously
 explained that “mandamus is available only when a peti-
 tioner lacks adequate alternative means to obtain the de-
 sired relief” and noted that “Mr. Proceviat is free to seek an
 [IMO] in his direct appeal.” Id. Since our prior opinion,
 the RO has at long last notified Mr. Proceviat that his re-
 quest for an IMO has been denied. See S.A. 17, 41. The
 Board has advised the Secretary that it will address the
 denial of Mr. Proceviat’s IMO request when it adjudicates
 the underlying service-connection claim.             S.A. 17.
 Mr. Proceviat’s appeal is currently pending before the
 Board. 3 Because the Board will address the IMO request
 in the direct appeal, Mr. Proceviat will be afforded an al-
 ternative means to pursue relief and is therefore not enti-
 tled to a writ compelling the VA to provide him an IMO.
 We see no clear error in the Veterans Court’s denial of the
 petition in this respect.
     Regarding the second interpretation and any potential
 unreasonable delay in issuing a decision on his IMO re-
 quest, the VA has finally, as noted above, provided
 Mr. Proceviat with a decision: on February 7, 2022, the RO
 denied the request. S.A. 41. We recognized in our earlier
 decision that “the VA could moot [the unreasonable delay]
 portion of the petition by issuing a decision on Mr. Proce-
 viat’s request for an [IMO].” Proceviat, 2021 WL 4227718,
 at *3. We conclude that the issue is indeed now moot. Un-
 der our case law, the issuance of a decision on the matter
 at hand renders moot a petition challenging unreasonable
 delay. Martin, 891 F.3d at 1349. While we sympathize
 with Mr. Proceviat for the undue time it took the VA to

     3   Mr. Proceviat’s appeal has been pending before the
 Board since August 11, 2020. S.A. 17. It is our hope that
 the Board will expeditiously address Mr. Proceviat’s IMO
 request as part of the underlying claim.
Case: 23-1439     Document: 20      Page: 8   Filed: 09/08/2023

 8                                   PROCEVIAT v. MCDONOUGH

 address his repeated unresolved IMO requests, we are con-
 strained to dismiss as moot this portion of his petition.
                              III
      Finally, we discern no clear error in the Veterans
 Court’s denial of the petition as related to Mr. Proceviat’s
 request for the medical literature on which the March 2018
 examiner relied. We previously found this issue had been
 improperly dismissed as moot because the VA had not pro-
 vided Mr. Proceviat with his requested relief. Proceviat,
 2021 WL 4227718, at *2. On remand, the VA explained
 that the examiner relied on information in an online repos-
 itory that is constantly refreshed with new literature, med-
 ical studies, and other scientific findings. S.A. 40. For that
 reason, the VA contends that “based on the ephemeral na-
 ture of the literature,” it is impossible to obtain the exact
 literature relied on at the time of the examination. S.A. 40.
 As the Veterans Court noted, it is a “truly bizarre principle
 that an agency can rely on evidence that now no longer ex-
 ists to deny a veteran a benefit.” S.A. 13. In any event, the
 VA rests on its position that the information is simply un-
 obtainable. Whether that is the case presents a factual dis-
 pute outside our limited jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C.
 § 7292(d)(2). Although Mr. Proceviat has still not received
 the requested literature, we agree with the Veterans Court
 that the issue may be raised either during an administra-
 tive appeal or in relation to a Board decision relying on the
 unavailable evidence. Because of the availability of alter-
 native relief, the Veterans Court appropriately denied the
 mandamus petition.
                         CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Veterans
 Court is affirmed.
                         AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.