Court Opinion

ID: 9945213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 16:02:34.174385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:24.729435
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1264    Document: 81    Page: 1   Filed: 02/27/2024

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

     JEREMY BEAUDETTE, MAYA BEAUDETTE,
              Claimants-Appellees

                            v.

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

                       2022-1264
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-4961, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
 Jr, Judge Joseph L. Toth, Judge Michael P. Allen.
                  ______________________

                Decided: February 27, 2024
                 ______________________

     IGOR VICTOR TIMOFEYEV, Paul Hastings LLP, Washing-
 ton, DC, argued for claimants-appellees. Also represented
 by RENEE A. BURBANK, BARTON FRANK STICHMAN, I, Na-
 tional Veterans Legal Services Program, Arlington, VA;
 MICHAEL J. FISHER, Miller Barondess, LLP, Los Angeles,
 CA.

     SOSUN BAE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Divi-
 sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
 DC, argued for respondent-appellant. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
Case: 22-1264    Document: 81      Page: 2    Filed: 02/27/2024

 2                                 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

 MCCARTHY; JANE ROTHSTEIN, BRYAN THOMPSON, Office of
 General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
 Affairs, Washington, DC.

     MORGAN MACISAAC-BYKOWSKI, Veterans Law Insti-
 tute, Stetson University College of Law, Gulfport, FL, for
 amicus curiae National Law School Veterans Clinic Con-
 sortium.

     ALEC UMBERTO GHEZZI, Veterans’ Voice of America, Sil-
 ver Spring, MD, for amicus curiae Vietnam Veterans of
 America.
                ______________________

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and STOLL, Circuit
                          Judges.
 MOORE, Chief Judge.
      The Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) appeals
 from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) granting a petition for a
 writ of mandamus permitting the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
 peals (Board) to hear appeals of adverse decisions rendered
 under the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Fam-
 ily Caregivers (Caregiver Program). For the following rea-
 sons, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
             A. History of the Caregiver Program
     In 2010, Congress established the Caregiver Program
 to provide assistance to caregivers of seriously injured com-
 bat veterans. Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health
 Services Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-163, Title I, 124 Stat.
 1130, 1132–40 (2010) (codified principally at 38 U.S.C.
 § 1720G) (Caregiver Act). The Caregiver Program provides
 family caregivers benefits such as medical care, training,
 support, counseling, mental health services, and a monthly
Case: 22-1264    Document: 81      Page: 3    Filed: 02/27/2024

 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH                                     3

 stipend. 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(3)(A). To qualify, the vet-
 eran must require personal care services because of “an in-
 ability to perform one or more activities of daily living” or
 a need for supervision, protection, or extensive instruction
 due to the nature of the injuries.               38 U.S.C.
 § 1720G(a)(2)(C). An eligible veteran and family caregiver
 seeking to participate in this program must jointly submit
 an application to the Secretary. 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(4).
 After initial approval, the veteran’s and family caregiver’s
 eligibility are generally reassessed on an annual basis. 38
 C.F.R. § 71.30.
     In 2015, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
 promulgated a final rule implementing the Caregiver Act.
 Caregivers Program, 80 Fed. Reg. 1357 (Jan. 9, 2015). The
 VA explained that all decisions under the Caregiver Act are
 medical determinations that are not subject to the jurisdic-
 tion of the Board. Id. at 1366. The VA noted the statute at
 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1), titled “Construction,” states: “A
 decision by the Secretary under this section affecting the
 furnishing of assistance or support shall be considered a
 medical determination.” Id. The VA explained “medical
 determinations are not subject to the jurisdiction of the
 Board of Veterans’ Appeals under 38 U.S.C. 7104, or pur-
 suant to our implementing regulation.” Id. The VA rea-
 soned that a longstanding regulation restricted the Board’s
 review of medical determinations.          See 38 C.F.R.
 § 20.101(b) (1992) (“Medical determinations, such as deter-
 minations of the need for and appropriateness of specific
 types of medical care and treatment for an individual, are
 not adjudicative matters and are beyond the Board’s juris-
 diction.”). Under the VA’s interpretation, the Caregiver
 Act deemed all decisions medical determinations, and thus
 such decisions “may not be adjudicated in the standard
 manner as claims associated with veterans’ benefits.”
 Caregivers Program, 80 Fed. Reg. at 1366.
Case: 22-1264    Document: 81      Page: 4    Filed: 02/27/2024

 4                                 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

                     B. Procedural History
     Jeremy Beaudette served in the Marine Corps from
 2002 to 2012, including five combat tours in Iraq and Af-
 ghanistan. Mr. Beaudette suffered multiple concussions,
 resulting in traumatic brain injury and rendering him le-
 gally blind. He was medically discharged, and the VA
 rated him 100% disabled.
      Mr. Beaudette and his wife Maya Beaudette (collec-
 tively, the Beaudettes) applied for Caregiver Program ben-
 efits in March 2013. The VA found them eligible based on
 Mr. Beaudette’s inability to perform activities of daily liv-
 ing and his substantial need for supervision and protection.
 The Beaudettes remained in the Caregiver Program for
 over four years and the VA consistently found them eligible
 during its annual reassessments. In October 2017, the VA
 initiated its regular reassessment of Mr. Beaudette. Due
 to Mr. Beaudette’s ongoing recovery from major surgeries,
 the Beaudettes requested a delay in the reassessment until
 he could physically participate. The VA denied the request
 and proceeded to reassess his status based solely on his
 medical records.
     In February 2018, the VA notified the Beaudettes they
 were no longer eligible for Caregiver Program benefits.
 The Beaudettes appealed the VA’s decision through the VA
 Clinical Appeals process. See Caregiver Program, 80 Fed.
 Reg. at 1366; see also VHA Directive 1041 (Oct. 24, 2016)
 (J.A. 23–33). They first appealed to the VA Southern Ne-
 vada Healthcare System (SNHS), the first-level reviewer,
 which affirmed the VA’s decision. The Beaudettes ap-
 pealed the SNHS decision to the second-level reviewer, the
 Director of the Sierra Pacific Veterans Integrated Service
 Network (VISN), which affirmed. The decision was consid-
 ered final and could not be appealed.
      The Beaudettes sought to appeal the final adverse de-
 cision by filing a Notice of Disagreement with the Board in
 August 2019. The Board issued no decision in response,
Case: 22-1264    Document: 81      Page: 5    Filed: 02/27/2024

 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH                                     5

 nor did the Board dismiss the Notice of Disagreement for
 lack of jurisdiction. Nearly a year later in July 2020, the
 Beaudettes filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the
 Veterans Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The petition
 sought an order to permit Board review of adverse Care-
 giver Program decisions and sought to certify a class of sim-
 ilarly situated veterans and caregivers.
      In April 2021, a majority of a three-judge panel granted
 the Beaudettes’ petition and certified the request for a
 class. Beaudette v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 95, 99
 (2021). 1 The majority held Congress mandated Board re-
 view of all Caregiver Program decisions. Id. at 105 (citing
 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a)). The majority disagreed with the Sec-
 retary’s position that the phrase “medical determination”
 in § 1720G(c)(1) is a direct reference to a longstanding VA
 rule, 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(b), excluding medical determina-
 tions from Board review. Id. at 101 (citing 38 U.S.C.
 §§ 511(a), 7252(a)), 103. Under the canons of statutory con-
 struction, the majority concluded the Secretary did not
 meet his burden to overcome the strong presumption favor-
 ing judicial review of administrative action. Id. at 102–03.
 The majority declined to provide a definitive interpretation
 of § 1720G(c)(1). Id. at 105.

     1  The Veterans Court ordered the Secretary to notify
 claimants of their right to appeal adverse Caregiver Pro-
 gram determinations to the Board. Beaudette, 34 Vet. App.
 at 99. The Secretary did not request a stay of the order.
 J.A. 1368–73; Appellee’s Response Br. at 15. The VA is-
 sued over 400,000 notices of potential appeal rights to all
 veterans and caregivers who ever received a Caregiver Pro-
 gram decision. See Joint Letter in Response to Court’s Or-
 der, Dkt. No. 75 at 2. As of December 11, 2023, the Board
 had issued over 1,000 decisions on appeals of Caregiver
 Program decisions. Id. at 3.
Case: 22-1264    Document: 81      Page: 6    Filed: 02/27/2024

 6                                 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

     Judge Falvey dissented because he believed the term
 “medical determination” in § 1720G(c)(1) refers to the
 longstanding VA rule, which was in existence before Con-
 gress passed the Caregiver Act. Id. at 109 (Falvey, J., dis-
 senting). He concluded the Secretary’s interpretation of
 § 1720G precluding Board review “is the only interpreta-
 tion that gives effect to all of the statute’s provisions and
 presumes that Congress understands the implications of
 its words.” Id.
    The Secretary appeals. 2 We have jurisdiction under 38
 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (c).
                         DISCUSSION
                               I
      In reviewing Veterans Court decisions, we “shall decide
 all relevant questions of law, including interpreting consti-
 tutional and statutory provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1).
 We have “jurisdiction to review the [Veterans Court’s] de-
 cision whether to grant a mandamus petition that raises a
 non-frivolous legal question,” and to determine “whether
 the petitioner has satisfied the legal standard for issuing
 the writ.” Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed.
 Cir. 2013). We review the Veterans Court’s legal interpre-
 tations de novo. Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 1312, 1316
 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
     The All Writs Act authorizes “all courts established by
 Act of Congress [to] issue all writs necessary or appropriate
 in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the
 usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651. To obtain
 a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must show: (1) a “clear
 and indisputable” right to the relief; (2) no adequate

     2   The Secretary does not appeal the Veterans Court’s
 class certification decision. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 16
 n.7.
Case: 22-1264     Document: 81       Page: 7    Filed: 02/27/2024

 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH                                        7

 alternative means to obtain the relief requested; and (3)
 the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Wolfe v.
 McDonough, 28 F.4th 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing
 Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81
 (2004)). The Secretary challenges the issuance of the writ.
                                II
     We consider whether the Beaudettes have a “clear and
 indisputable” right to Board review under the correct inter-
 pretation of 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1). The statute states: “A
 decision by the Secretary under this section affecting the
 furnishing of assistance or support shall be considered a
 medical determination.” 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1). The
 Beaudettes’ right depends on whether the term “medical
 determination” precludes Board (and judicial) review of all
 Caregiver Program decisions. For the reasons set forth be-
 low, we hold § 1720G(c)(1) only bars judicial review of
 Caregiver Program decisions on the furnishing of assis-
 tance or support.
     There is a “strong presumption” favoring judicial re-
 view of agency actions. Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C., 575
 U.S. 480, 486 (2015) (quoting Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Fam.
 Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986)). This rebuttable pre-
 sumption is overcome if the “statute’s language or struc-
 ture demonstrates that Congress wanted an agency to
 police its own conduct.” Id. The party seeking to rebut the
 presumption, here the Secretary, “bears a ‘heavy burden’ of
 showing that the statute’s ‘language or structure’ fore-
 closes judicial review.” Salinas v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 592
 U.S. 188, 197 (2021) (quoting Mach Mining, 575 U.S. at
 486). The Secretary has not met its burden to show all
 Caregiver Program decisions are exempt from judicial re-
 view.
     Historically, there was no judicial review of VA benefits
 decisions. See, e.g., Act of March 20, 1933, ch. 3 § 5, 48 Stat.
 9 (1933) (“All decisions rendered by the Administrator of
 Veterans’ Affairs . . . shall be final and conclusive on all
Case: 22-1264     Document: 81      Page: 8    Filed: 02/27/2024

 8                                  BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

 questions of law and fact, and no other official or court of
 the United States shall have jurisdiction to review by man-
 damus or otherwise any such decision.”); 38 U.S.C. § 211(a)
 (1958) (“[T]he decisions of the Administrator on any ques-
 tion of law or fact concerning a claim for benefits or pay-
 ments . . . shall be final and conclusive and no other official
 or any court of the United States shall have power or juris-
 diction to review any such decision.”). This exclusion re-
 mained in place for decades.
      In 1988, Congress, for the first time, established a
 pathway for judicial review for certain benefits decisions
 when it passed the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act of 1988
 (VJRA). Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-
 687, 102 Stat. 4105 (1988). The VJRA accomplished this
 by amending § 211(a) to create exceptions to the general
 prohibition to judicial review. See 38 U.S.C. § 211(a)
 (1988); 38 U.S.C. § 511 (2012); Bates v. Nicholson, 398 F.3d
 1355, 1362–64 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (explaining the history of
 § 511, including its predecessor § 211(a)). Specifically, all
 “matters covered by chapter 72 of this title” were now sub-
 ject to judicial review. 38 U.S.C. § 211(a)(2)(D) (1988) (ex-
 empting certain matters from the general prohibition of
 judicial review); see VJRA § 101. The VJRA also estab-
 lished that the newly created Veterans Court has jurisdic-
 tion over all Board decisions that are eligible for judicial
 review. VJRA § 301 (creating 38 U.S.C. § 4052, renum-
 bered to current § 7252, to establish jurisdiction). Under
 the VJRA, the Board continued to have jurisdiction over
 “[a]ll questions in a matter which under section 511(a) of
 this title is subject to decision by the Secretary.” 38 U.S.C.
 § 7104(a).
     In view of this history, Congress knew how to limit ju-
 dicial review, including the jurisdiction of the Board, when
 it passed the Caregiver Act in 2010. In fact, in a related
 context, Congress expressly prohibited judicial review of all
 decisions under the Veterans Community Care Program.
 38 U.S.C. § 1703(f). There, Congress stated that “review of
Case: 22-1264     Document: 81     Page: 9    Filed: 02/27/2024

 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH                                      9

 any decision under subsection (d) or (e) shall be subject to
 the Department’s clinical appeals process, and such deci-
 sions may not be appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
 peals.” Id. (emphases added). When Congress intends to
 prohibit judicial review, it clearly does so. See, e.g., 38
 U.S.C. §§ 511(a), 7252(b) (“The Court may not review the
 schedule of ratings or disabilities . . . or any action of the
 Secretary in adopting or revising that schedule.”), 7263(d)
 (“An order of the Court under this subsection is final and
 may not be reviewed in any other court.”).
     Congress did not express an intent to prohibit judicial
 review of all decisions in the plain language of
 § 1720G(c)(1). 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1) (“A decision by the
 Secretary under this section affecting the furnishing of as-
 sistance or support shall be considered a medical determi-
 nation.”); see, e.g., Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337,
 340–41 (1997) (explaining the “plainness or ambiguity of
 statutory language is determined by reference to the lan-
 guage itself”). Indeed, the statute does not directly address
 judicial review at all.
     Though the plain language does not prohibit judicial
 review, the Secretary argues Congress intended for all
 Caregiver Program decisions to be exempt from Board re-
 view. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 21–22, 36–37. The Sec-
 retary argues “medical determination” is a reference to the
 VA’s regulation precluding Board review of medical deter-
 minations, which demonstrates Congress’ intent to exclude
 them from Board review. Id. at 21–22 (citing 38 C.F.R.
 § 20.104(b) (1992)). We do not agree.
     The Secretary’s argument is based on VA regulations
 issued in 1983, prior to the VJRA, delineating the appellate
 jurisdiction of the Board. Appeals Regulations, 48 Fed.
 Reg. 6961, 6970 (Feb. 17, 1983) (codified at 38 C.F.R. pt.
 19). The VA established that “[m]edical determinations,
 such as determinations of the need for and appropriateness
 of specific types of medical care and treatment for an
Case: 22-1264     Document: 81      Page: 10    Filed: 02/27/2024

 10                                  BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

 individual, are not adjudicative matters and are beyond the
 Board’s jurisdiction.” 38 C.F.R § 19.3(b) (1983). The VA
 has continued to implement regulations, not challenged by
 either party, that establish the types of matters within the
 Board’s jurisdiction. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(b) (1992); 38
 C.F.R. § 20.104(a) (2019). When the Caregiver Act was en-
 acted, the Board’s appellate jurisdiction was defined:
      (b) Appellate jurisdiction of determinations of the
      Veterans Health Administration. The Board’s ap-
      pellate jurisdiction extends to questions of eligibil-
      ity for hospitalization, outpatient treatment, and
      nursing home and domiciliary care; for devices
      such as prostheses, canes, wheelchairs, back
      braces, orthopedic shoes, and similar appliances;
      and for other benefits administered by the Veter-
      ans Health Administration. Medical determina-
      tions, such as determinations of the need for and
      appropriateness of specific types of medical care
      and treatment for an individual, are not adjudica-
      tive matters and are beyond the Board’s jurisdic-
      tion. Typical examples of these issues are whether
      a particular drug should be prescribed, whether a
      specific type of physiotherapy should be ordered,
      and similar judgmental treatment decisions with
      which an attending physician may be faced.
 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(b) (1992) (emphasis added). 3 The regu-
 lation was redesignated in 2019 to section 20.104(b) and

      3  Because the statute references a term of art in the
 VA regulation, the VA is bound by the language in the reg-
 ulation at the time the Caregiver Act passed. See George
 v. McDonough, 596 U.S. 740, 746–47 (2022) (“Where Con-
 gress employs a term of art obviously transplanted from
 another legal source, it brings the old soil with it.” (internal
 quotations omitted)); Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535,
Case: 22-1264    Document: 81     Page: 11    Filed: 02/27/2024

 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH                                    11

 retained nearly the same language. See VA Claims and
 Appeals Modernization, 84 Fed. Reg. 138, 177 (2019).
      We presume Congress legislates with knowledge of ex-
 isting statutes and regulations. Goodyear Atomic Corp. v.
 Miller, 486 U.S. 174, 184–85 (1988) (“We generally pre-
 sume that Congress is knowledgeable about existing law
 pertinent to the legislation it enacts.”); see Traynor, 485
 U.S. at 545–46. The Secretary argues Congress’ awareness
 of VA’s longstanding regulation points to their intention to
 prohibit judicial review. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 28–30.
 But the Beaudettes do not argue Congress was unaware of
 the regulation. Rather, the Beaudettes argue that with
 awareness of the regulation, Congress limited its applica-
 tion.     Oral Arg. at 39:00–41:42, https://oralargu-
 ments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22-1264_120620
 23.mp3. We agree with both parties that the reference to
 “medical determination” implicates the VA regulation re-
 garding the Board’s jurisdiction.
      To the extent the Secretary is suggesting that by refer-
 encing “medical determination[s],” Congress intended no
 judicial review of all Caregiver Program decisions, we do
 not agree. Congress chose to limit the regulation’s applica-
 bility to only decisions “affecting the furnishing of assis-
 tance or support.” 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1); see Oral Arg. at
 39:00–41:42. We understand this language to except from
 Board review only decisions relating to the need for or ap-
 propriateness of specific types of medical care and treat-
 ment,     which     are   properly    considered     medical
 determinations. The Caregiver Act necessarily requires
 decisions other than medical determinations, such as
 whether veterans and caregivers are eligible to receive

 545–46 (1988) (explaining that when Congress uses a term
 of art when enacting a statute, it intends the same term
 receive the same meaning for purposes of that statute).
Case: 22-1264    Document: 81      Page: 12    Filed: 02/27/2024

 12                                 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

 benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7). Ju-
 dicial review over those decisions is not precluded.
      The Secretary’s argument is also inconsistent with the
 regulation itself. The VA’s regulation broadly defines the
 types of decisions that fall within the scope of the Board’s
 review. For example, the first sentence of 38 C.F.R.
 § 20.101(b) states the Board has jurisdiction over eligibility
 decisions of various benefits, such as outpatient treatment,
 domiciliary care, and “other benefits administered by the
 Veterans Health Administration.” 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(b)
 (1992). 4 Some Caregiver Program decisions are at least
 within the scope of “other benefits” and would fall under
 the Board’s jurisdiction. See Appellant’s Opening Br. at 14
 n.6.
     The VA regulation excludes from Board review a nar-
 row type of medical determination that is essential to VA’s
 authority to prescribe specific types of medical care or
 treatment. 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(b) (1992) (describing medi-
 cal determinations as “determinations of the need for and
 appropriateness of specific types of medical care and treat-
 ment for an individual”). The regulation provides exam-
 ples of medical determinations, such as a type of drug that
 should be prescribed, type of physiotherapy that should be
 ordered, or any other similar “judgmental treatment deci-
 sions.” Id. The language of 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1) is

      4   At the panel’s request, the parties submitted sup-
 plemental briefing on the meaning of “domiciliary care”
 within section 20.101(b). Supplemental Brief for Appel-
 lant, Dkt. No. 77; Supplemental Brief for Appellees, Dkt.
 No. 76. The parties appear to agree the term historically
 means providing housing to a veteran rather than provid-
 ing in-home care. Appellant’s Supp. Br. at 2–3; Appellees’
 Supp. Br. at 3. Because section 20.101(b) covers “other ben-
 efits,” we need not address the current meaning of “domi-
 ciliary care.”
Case: 22-1264    Document: 81      Page: 13     Filed: 02/27/2024

 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH                                      13

 consistent with the VA’s regulation. Section 1720G(c)(1)
 does not state all Caregiver Program decisions are medical
 determinations, only decisions about the type of “assis-
 tance or support.” 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1). An eligibility
 decision is not a judgmental treatment decision and thus
 not a medical determination.
      Moreover, the Board has the authority to determine
 the types of Caregiver Program decisions that fall within
 its jurisdiction. 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c) (2019) (“The Board
 shall decide all questions pertaining to its jurisdictional au-
 thority to review a particular case.”). To comply with 38
 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1), the Board must view all decisions
 about the “furnishing of assistance or support” as medical
 determinations and outside of its jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C.
 § 1720G(c)(1). An example of such a decision is whether a
 specific type of mental health service is appropriate, or
 whether the type of respite care provided for primary fam-
 ily caregivers is medically and age-appropriate. 38 U.S.C.
 § 1720G(a)(3)(A)(ii)(II), (a)(3)(A)(ii)(III), (a)(3)(B). Other
 decisions not related to the furnishing of assistance and
 support are within the Board’s jurisdiction. For example,
 decisions about the veteran’s or caregiver’s eligibility, such
 as whether the caregiver is an appropriate family member,
 are within the Board’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., 38 U.S.C.
 § 1720G(d)(3).
     Here, the Beaudettes were deemed ineligible partially
 because Mr. Beaudette was not available for an in-person
 evaluation. J.A. 48–49. This is a procedural issue related
 to Caregiver Program eligibility and is not a medical deter-
 mination. The Board has the authority to review the
 Beaudettes’ decision based on the interpretation of the
 statute and the VA regulation.
     We conclude the Beaudettes and other similarly situ-
 ated veterans and caregivers have an indisputable right to
 judicial review of Caregiver Program decisions that do not
 affect the furnishing of support or assistance. The Board
Case: 22-1264    Document: 81      Page: 14   Filed: 02/27/2024

 14                                 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

 has the authority under 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c) to determine
 the types of appeals within its jurisdiction in light of the
 guidance above.
                             III
     We next consider whether the Beaudettes had no ade-
 quate alternative means to obtain the relief requested.
 Wolfe, 28 F.4th at 1354. The Secretary argues the
 Beaudettes could have filed a direct appeal to this Court
 pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 502. Appellant’s Opening Br. at
 46–48. A § 502 petition is a challenge to the VA’s regula-
 tions or rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure
 Act. 38 U.S.C. § 502 (providing judicial review of VA’s ac-
 tion under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(1) or 553).         But the
 Beaudettes do not challenge the VA’s regulation or rule-
 making for the Caregiver Program.             Rather, the
 Beaudettes seek judicial review of an adverse decision re-
 garding their eligibility for the Caregiver Program. J.A.
 3–4; see also Oral Arg. at 28:42–30:31 (Secretary agreeing
 the Beaudettes are not challenging a regulation or rule).
 While the Beaudettes’ arguments challenge the VA’s inter-
 pretation of a statute, they are not challenging the VA’s
 rulemaking. Thus, the Beaudettes had no adequate alter-
 native means to obtain the relief requested and the Veter-
 ans Court properly issued a writ of mandamus.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given above,
 we affirm the Veterans Court’s grant of the petition for a
 writ of mandamus.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.