Court Opinion

ID: 9368905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 15:00:34.895021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:11.643674
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2187    Document: 20     Page: 1   Filed: 02/07/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

            CESAR R. VAZQUEZ TORRES,
                Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2022-2187
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 22-4160, Judge Scott Laurer.
                 ______________________

                Decided: February 7, 2023
                 ______________________

    CESAR R. VAZQUEZ TORRES, San Juan, PR, pro se.

     MATTHEW JUDE CARHART, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
 sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

     Before PROST, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-2187    Document: 20      Page: 2    Filed: 02/07/2023

 2                            VAZQUEZ TORRES   v. MCDONOUGH

 PER CURIAM.
     Cesar R. Vazquez Torres appeals from the United
 States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ (“Veterans
 Court”) decision denying his petition for a writ of manda-
 mus. Because Mr. Vazquez Torres’s appeal is moot, we dis-
 miss. 1
                        BACKGROUND
     In April 2016, a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
 (“VA”) regional office (“RO”) granted Mr. Vazquez Torres
 entitlement to a 70-percent rating for his service-connected
 chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and de-
 pressed mood. Appx2. 2 The RO also granted Mr. Vazquez
 Torres entitlement to a total disability rating based on in-
 dividual unemployability (“TDIU”) due “in part [to] the im-
 pairment caused by [his] chronic adjustment disorder.”
 Appx2–3. Both of these entitlements were given an effec-
 tive date of January 12, 2016. See Appx37. But, two
 months later, the RO proposed to sever Mr. Vazquez
 Torres’s service connection for the chronic adjustment dis-
 order due to a clear and unmistakable error in its
 April 2016 decision and, as a result, discontinue
 Mr. Vazquez Torres’s TDIU entitlement. Appx3. The RO
 notified Mr. Vazquez Torres of its decision to take those ac-
 tions, and Mr. Vazquez Torres appealed to the Board of
 Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). Appx3.
     In March 2018, the Board determined that the RO’s
 severance of service connection for Mr. Vazquez Torres’s
 chronic adjustment disorder was error, and the RO imple-
 mented the Board’s decision in April 2018. Appx3.

     1    For the same reason, we dismiss Mr. Vazquez
 Torres’s separate request for mandamus directed to this
 court. Informal Reply Br. 3.
      2   “Appx” refers to the appendix attached to Appel-
 lee’s informal response brief.
Case: 22-2187     Document: 20      Page: 3    Filed: 02/07/2023

 VAZQUEZ TORRES   v. MCDONOUGH                                3

 However, neither the Board’s March 2018 decision nor the
 RO’s April 2018 decision addressed or otherwise adjudi-
 cated Mr. Vazquez Torres’s TDIU entitlement. Appx3.
      Mr. Vazquez Torres did not appeal the Board’s 2018 de-
 cision. Instead, he separately petitioned for mandamus
 and asked the Veterans Court to “order [the] VA to restore
 his TDIU rating and pay retroactive benefits.” Appx3. The
 Veterans Court denied that petition because Mr. Vazquez
 Torres had not “exhausted alternate means to obtain the
 desired relief”—namely, Mr. Vazquez Torres had not filed
 a motion with the Board to revise its March 2018 decision
 to address his TDIU rating. Appx4–5. Mr. Vazquez Torres
 initiated this appeal from the Veterans Court’s denial of his
 petition in September 2022.
     Since then, in October 2022, the RO issued a decision
 resuming Mr. Vazquez Torres’s TDIU entitlement “effec-
 tive January 12, 2016.” Appx36. As the RO explained, the
 Board’s March 2018 decision restoring service connection
 for Mr. Vazquez Torres’s chronic adjustment disorder also,
 logically, required restoring Mr. Vazquez Torres’s TDIU
 entitlement. Appx37 (describing Mr. Vazquez Torres’s
 TDIU entitlement as a “downstream issue” of his service-
 connected chronic adjustment disorder entitlement).
                          DISCUSSION
     “[M]ootness . . . is a threshold jurisdictional issue,” My-
 ers Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States,
 275 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002), “derive[d] from” the
 constitutional requirement that there be “a case or contro-
 versy” in order for a federal court to exercise its judicial
 power, DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974); see
 U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. A claim is moot, for example,
 when “the issues presented are no longer live or the parties
 lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome,” Powell v.
 McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969) (cleaned up), like
 when the complaining party has already received the
Case: 22-2187     Document: 20      Page: 4   Filed: 02/07/2023

 4                             VAZQUEZ TORRES   v. MCDONOUGH

 desired relief from his opposing party, see DeFunis,
 416 U.S. at 316–20.
     But there are exceptions to mootness. Relevant here, a
 claim is not moot when it is “capable of repetition, yet evad-
 ing review.” See id. at 318–19. Mr. Vazquez Torres argues
 that this exception applies to his appeal because, he con-
 tends, a VA entity may discontinue his TDIU entitlement
 in the future and resolution of this appeal would act “as a
 preventative measure” to preclude such an action. Infor-
 mal Reply Br. 2–3 (emphasis omitted).
      Mr. Vazquez Torres’s appeal does not present a claim
 that is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”
 Mr. Vazquez Torres’s argument to the contrary ignores the
 “yet evading review” prong. Nothing in the record suggests
 that Mr. Vazquez Torres would not be able to obtain an ap-
 peal from a future RO decision discontinuing his TDIU en-
 titlement.
     Mr. Vazquez Torres’s appeal seeking full restoration of
 his TDIU entitlement was rendered moot by the RO’s Oc-
 tober 2022 decision granting that relief. We therefore lack
 jurisdiction and must dismiss.       See Myers, 275 F.3d
 at 1369.
                         CONCLUSION
     We have considered Mr. Vazquez Torres’s remaining
 arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing
 reasons, we dismiss Mr. Vazquez Torres’s appeal.
                        DISMISSED
                            COSTS
 No costs.