Buholtz v. Snyder
680 F. App'x 922
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Kenneth Buholtz filed multiple VA claims (disability benefits including PTSD and a request to apportion benefits to his minor son) and later petitioned the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for a writ of mandamus alleging unreasonable delay and errors in decisions.
- The Secretary responded that a November 2014 regional office rating decision adjudicated 17 claims filed in November 2013, that the PTSD claim was on appeal to the Board, an appeals team was handling a TDIU-related claim, and the apportionment claim was actively being processed with recent requests for information.
- A draft regional-office decision on additional claims (knee, wrist, GERD) was released June 6, 2016, and Buholtz filed a notice of disagreement on September 10, 2016.
- The Veterans Court denied mandamus, finding Buholtz had not shown a clear and indisputable right to the writ because the VA was adjudicating and processing his claims rather than refusing to act.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed only legal issues and constitutional questions as limited by 38 U.S.C. § 7292, and affirmed the Veterans Court, concluding mandamus was inappropriate because alternative remedies (direct appeal) were adequate and Buholtz had not shown the extraordinary delay or clear right required for mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Buholtz's Argument | McDonald/Secretary's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel VA to comply with apportionment regs (38 C.F.R. §§3.451, 3.665(e)) | VA failed to timely/apportion benefits to his dependent son; seeks writ to force compliance | VA was processing the apportionment claim and had requested information; not a refusal to act | Denied — no clear right shown; claim was being processed and appeal remains available |
| Whether VA misapplied rating rules (improper combined rating) | 2014 disability rating improperly "combined" in violation of VA regs | VA contends determinations were adjudicated and are subject to normal appeal routes | Denied — merits unresolved; mandamus inappropriate because remedies exist via direct appeal |
| Whether VA unreasonably delayed adjudication of PTSD/TDIU claims violating due process | Delay in processing PTSD/TDIU rises to constitutional violation and warrants mandamus | VA showed claims were pending and being processed; precedent does not establish due-process violation from these delays | Denied — petitioner failed to show extraordinary delay or due-process violation required for mandamus |
| Whether 10 U.S.C. §1553 mandates expedited treatment of PTSD claims | §1553 requires expedited review of PTSD-related claims | §1553 governs review of military discharges/dismissals, not VA benefit claims; not applicable | Denied — statutory argument is incorrect; §1553 does not grant the relief sought |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394 (mandamus is a drastic, extraordinary remedy)
- Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379 (mandamus does not substitute for adequate appeal processes)
- Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir.) (mandamus standards applied to Veterans Court petitions)
- Johnson v. Shinseki, [citation="549 F. App'x 994"] (Fed. Cir.) (delay-based due process challenge rejected)
- Woznick v. Shinseki, [citation="492 F. App'x 100"] (Fed. Cir.) (similar rejection of delay-based due process claim)