Court Opinion

ID: 9907370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 15:00:53.908827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:41.756674
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1821   Document: 18     Page: 1    Filed: 12/06/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                 ROBERT CASTILLO,
                  Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

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

                       2023-1821
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 22-5169, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
 dith, Judge Grant Jaquith, Judge Scott Laurer.
                 ______________________

                Decided: December 6, 2023
                 ______________________

    ROBERT CASTILLO, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

     DANIEL BERTONI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________
Case: 23-1821      Document: 18    Page: 2    Filed: 12/06/2023

 2                                    CASTILLO v. MCDONOUGH

         Before DYK, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Robert Castillo appeals pro se a decision of the United
 States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that it lacked
 jurisdiction over Mr. Castillo’s petition for a writ of manda-
 mus. The Veterans Court determined that while the peti-
 tion was pending, the Department of Veterans Affairs
 granted the relief sought by Mr. Castillo, thereby rendering
 Mr. Castillo’s petition moot. We affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
     Mr. Castillo served in the United States Navy from
 1990 to 2003. SAppx60. 1 In October 2020, he submitted a
 supplemental compensation form to the Department of
 Veterans Affairs (“VA”), in which he argued that a March
 8, 2004, rating decision incorrectly applied the schedule for
 rating disabilities for “gout, right knee, [and] hearing im-
 pairment” issues. SAppx11. He requested that the March
 2004 rating decision be revised on grounds of clear and un-
 mistakable error or “CUE”. 2 SAppx12. The VA responded
 and asked Mr. Castillo to resubmit his request using the
 proper form, VA Form 20-0995 or 20-0996. SAppx22–26.
 In several exchanges with the VA, Mr. Castillo argued that
 his request did not require a specific form. SAppx27;
 SAppx29; SAppx39–40.
     During this same time period, Mr. Castillo also submit-
 ted two VA Form 9s that indicated he sought to appeal the

     1  “SAppx” refers to the appendix accompanying the
 government’s responsive brief.
     2  CUE must be the type of error, which “had it not
 been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome at
 the time it was made.” Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334,
 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc) (citations omitted); see also
 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(c).
Case: 23-1821     Document: 18     Page: 3    Filed: 12/06/2023

 CASTILLO v. MCDONOUGH                                       3

 VA’s response letters to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
 (“Board”). SAppx27; SAppx39. After Mr. Castillo sent his
 second VA Form 9, the VA sent Mr. Castillo another letter,
 stating that “[w]e received your correspondence indicating
 that you would like to file a claim for benefits.” SAppx49.
 Despite this, there did not appear to be proceedings before
 the Board.
      Mr. Castillo filed a petition for a writ of mandamus be-
 fore the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
 Claims (“Veterans Court”). SAppx1. Mr. Castillo argued
 that the VA improperly refused to adjudicate his request
 for a review of the March 2004 disability rating decision.
 He requested that the Veterans Court order the VA to con-
 sider his CUE request in the first instance. Id. The VA,
 however, had instituted a review of Mr. Castillo’s CUE
 claim in October 2020. SAppx60. In November 2022, the
 VA Regional Office denied Mr. Castillo’s claim. SAppx60–
 66. The Veterans Court then dismissed as moot Mr. Cas-
 tillo’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Mr. Castillo ap-
 peals. We have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292.
                         DISCUSSION
     We agree with the Veterans Court that it lacks juris-
 diction over Mr. Castillo’s mandamus petition.
     Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits federal court
 jurisdiction to cases and controversies. U.S. CONST. art. III,
 § 2. We possess jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s
 denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus. See Lamb v.
 Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Beasley v.
 Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Mootness,
 as a question of law, is reviewed de novo. See Ford Motor
 Co. v. United States, 688 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
     Mr. Castillo petitioned the Veterans Court to direct the
 VA to adjudicate his request for a review of the March 2004
 rating decision. SAppx1, 11–12. But the record shows that
 in November 2022, while his petition was pending before
Case: 23-1821    Document: 18       Page: 4   Filed: 12/06/2023

 4                                    CASTILLO v. MCDONOUGH

 the Veterans Court, the VA considered and denied his CUE
 claim concerning the March 2004 rating decision.
 SAppx60–66. As a result, the VA provided the relief
 Mr. Castillo sought in his petition for a writ of mandamus.
 The Veterans Court correctly determined it lacked jurisdic-
 tion due to mootness because the relief sought by Mr. Cas-
 tillo has been satisfied. Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 1312,
 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We affirm the Veterans Court’s dis-
 missal for lack of jurisdiction because a case “that becomes
 moot is no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for Article III
 purposes.” Mote v. Wilkie, 976 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir.
 2020) (citation omitted).
     We note that, depending on the circumstances,
 Mr. Castillo, may have an avenue to appeal to the Board
 the merits of the VA’s November 2022 decision.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Mr. Castillo’s other arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. We affirm the Veterans Court’s
 decision that it lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Castillo’s peti-
 tion for a writ of mandamus.
                         AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.