Alford v. McDonough
21-2029
Fed. Cir.Apr 13, 2022Background:
- Leroy Alford, an Air Force veteran, applied for VA Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment (VR&E) benefits in June 2010 and received benefits until they were discontinued on April 22, 2016 for alleged failure to pursue the plan and to respond to VA contacts.
- Alford requested administrative review and filed a Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE) claim; the Regional Office treated it as a notice of disagreement and upheld the discontinuance, advising reapplication.
- Alford appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on July 28, 2017; the Board remanded for development in June 2019; after reassignment and another hearing, the appeal remained pending as of July 2021.
- While appeals were pending, Alford also requested equitable relief from the Secretary under 38 U.S.C. § 503(a); the VA acknowledged the request but stayed consideration because the Board appeal was pending.
- Alford petitioned the Veterans Court for a writ of mandamus to compel decisions on both the Board appeal and the equitable-relief request; the Veterans Court denied the petition (Feb. 26, 2021), finding no undue delay by the Board under TRAC and concluding it lacked jurisdiction to compel the Secretary on equitable relief.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed: it found no abuse of discretion in the Veterans Court’s application of mandamus standards and TRAC factors, and confirmed the court’s lack of appellate jurisdiction over VA equitable-relief requests.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel the Board to decide Alford’s appeal due to undue delay | Board delay is unreasonable and mandamus is the only adequate remedy | Delay is explainable by system burdens and remand-processing; TRAC factors do not favor compulsion | Denied — no mandamus; Veterans Court reasonably applied TRAC and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Veterans Court can issue mandamus to compel the Secretary to decide an equitable-relief request | Court can compel action on equitable-relief request | Veterans Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over equitable-relief requests to the Secretary | Denied — Veterans Court lacked jurisdiction to issue mandamus as to equitable relief |
| Whether Federal Circuit should vacate Veterans Court and decide Alford’s case de novo | Ask court to vacate and decide merits de novo under AWA | All Writs Act does not expand jurisdiction; mandamus is not a substitute for merits decision | Denied — AWA doesn’t permit de novo merits review or substitute for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394 (writ of mandamus is drastic remedy)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (three-part mandamus standard)
- Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (TRAC factors for assessing agency delay)
- Martin v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (applying TRAC to VA delay cases)
- Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (reviewability of Veterans Court AWA decisions)
- Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (jurisdiction to review Veterans Court mandamus decisions raising legal questions)
- Cox v. West, 149 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (AWA writs are in aid of existing jurisdiction)
- Burris v. Wilkie, 888 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Veterans Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over VA equitable-relief requests)
- Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379 (1953) (mandamus cannot be used to control trial-court decision-making)