Beasley v. Shinseki
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5025
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Beasley, a Vietnam veteran with PTSD, initially denied VA benefits but later service-connected in 1992 at 30% and eligible for TDIU dating to 1996.
- VA later fixed the TDIU effective date as 1994 and rated PTSD at 100% from 1994, with ongoing reevaluations.
- In 2010, the Board found CUE in 1992 rating and remanded to determine PTSD rating from July 18, 1987, and the TDIU date, after potential clinical/retrospective evaluations.
- Beasley submitted new lay evidence and medical records (1985–1994) in 2011; VA counsel refused the treating physician’s opinion citing conflict of interest under VHA Directive 2008-071.
- Beasley sought mandamus in CAVC to compel a retrospective medical opinion from his treating physician; CAVC denied relief, holding no statutory duty to issue mandamus.
- Beasley appeals to this court; the court confirms jurisdiction to review a mandamus petition raising a legal question under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the mandamus petition | Beasley asserts legal question jurisdiction exists to interpret 5103A duties. | Government contends no jurisdiction to review law-as-applied challenges under § 7292(d)(2). | Court has jurisdiction to review the mandamus petition for a non-fact-based legal question. |
| Whether Beasley is entitled to mandamus relief on the merits | Beasley seeks an order directing retrospective medical opinion from VA physician based on new lay evidence. | VA duty to assist does not obligate open-ended physician opinions; adequate remedies exist through appeals. | Mandamus denied; no clear legal right to the requested remedy and adequate alternative relief via appeals. |
| Whether the VA can prohibit a treating physician from reviewing new evidence due to conflict concerns | Prohibiting treating physician review undermines the duty to assist and veterans’ access to evidence-based evaluations. | Directive prevents conflicts of interest; physician review may be restricted to protect integrity of proceedings. | Beasley’s broader claim rejected; court affirms denial of mandamus but acknowledges jurisdiction to review legal question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367 (U.S. 2004) (mandamus standards and elements)
- Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (mandamus review limited to legal questions in veterans cases)
- Cox v. West, 149 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (recognized CAVC mandamus jurisdiction over adequate alternative remedy)
- Bates v. Nicholson, 398 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (directing CAVC mandamus review of legal questions in veterans cases)