Davis v. McDonald
593 F. App'x 992
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Donald R. Davis served in the Army (1979–1982) and filed a VEAP (educational benefits) claim denied by a VA Regional Office on Nov. 27, 2013 because he had previously received a VEAP refund.
- Davis submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD) and multiple subsequent NODs; his fourth NOD (Apr. 28, 2014) contested the denial and the RO’s refusal to return VEAP payments.
- On June 30, 2014, Davis petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for a writ of mandamus to compel the RO to process his appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.
- The Veterans Court dismissed the mandamus petition (July 17, 2014), finding Davis failed to show “extraordinary delay” or a "clear and indisputable right" to the writ under Cheney and related authorities.
- Davis appealed to the Federal Circuit invoking 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); the Federal Circuit reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to consider his arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extraordinary writ (mandamus) was warranted to compel RO to process appeal | Davis: two-month lapse after his Apr. 28, 2014 NOD constituted extraordinary delay justifying mandamus | Veterans Court/Secretary: delay was not extraordinary; mandamus requires no adequate alternative, clear right, and appropriateness under Cheney | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to review factual findings; Veterans Court’s denial involved fact-finding and application of law to facts, outside § 7292 review |
| Whether Federal Circuit may review Veterans Court’s factual determinations or law-applied-to-fact | Davis: challenges Veterans Court’s application of law to facts and factual findings | Secretary: these are factual or law-applied-to-fact issues, which § 7292(d)(2) precludes the Federal Circuit from reviewing | Held: Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction over factual determinations and law-as-applied claims (dismissed) |
| Whether Veterans Court misinterpreted or failed to apply statutes/regulations (e.g., 38 C.F.R. § 20.904(a)(2)) | Davis: argues Board/RO procedures/regulations were misapplied or ignored, implying reversible error | Secretary: Veterans Court did not interpret or rely on those regulations; appellant didn’t show misinterpretation of law | Held: No non-frivolous legal question presented about statutory/regulatory interpretation; jurisdiction not invoked |
| Whether constitutional (due process/access-to-court) rights were implicated | Davis: labels RO inaction and delay as due process/access-to-court violations | Secretary: characterization as constitutional is insufficient when arguments attack merits/facts; no separate constitutional ruling below | Held: Alleged constitutional claims are merits-based in name only and do not confer jurisdiction; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394 (drastic nature of mandamus; narrow, extraordinary remedy)
- Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367 (three-part Cheney test for mandamus: no adequate alternative, clear and indisputable right, appropriateness)
- Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir.) (Federal Circuit’s limited jurisdiction to review Veterans Court mandamus decisions; cannot review factual merits)
- Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir.) (scope of Federal Circuit review of Veterans Court actions)
- Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir.) (distinguishing reviewable legal questions from non-reviewable applications of law to fact)
- Flores v. Nicholson, 476 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir.) (labeling an argument constitutional does not automatically create jurisdiction when it attacks the merits)
- Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir.) (characterization of issues as constitutional does not confer jurisdiction)