Harris v. McDonald
669 F. App'x 564
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 12, 2015 the VA Seattle Regional Office issued a rating decision denying Harris’s claim that certain benefit payments should not be reduced by other pension/dependent payments.
- Harris filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) on Nov. 30, 2015, before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) had issued any decision on the claim.
- The Secretary moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the Veterans Court’s jurisdiction is limited to review of Board decisions; Harris confirmed no Board decision existed.
- The Veterans Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252 and 7266(a); final judgment entered Apr. 13, 2016.
- Harris appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing he was not required to wait for a Board decision because delay by the Board (or VA) created a Fifth Amendment due-process violation and thus an exception to the Board-decision jurisdictional prerequisite.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Veterans Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from a RO decision absent a Board decision | Harris: he need not wait for a Board decision; delay by the Board/VA creates a constitutional exception | Secretary: §7252 requires a Board "decision"; no statutory exception for anticipated constitutional delay | Court: No jurisdiction—§7252 requires a Board decision that grants or denies the claim |
| Whether a constitutional due-process claim based on undue delay can bypass the §7252 Board-decision requirement | Harris: anticipated or ongoing delay violates due process and should allow immediate Veterans Court review | Secretary: no statutory exception; constitutional claims can be raised to the Board and then reviewed | Court: Constitutional claim does not excuse the §7252 decision requirement; Ledford controls that constitutionally based challenges still require a Board decision |
| Whether Harris has pled a colorable due-process violation based on delay | Harris: asserts Board/VA delay will deny him timely process | Secretary: Harris filed to Veterans Court too soon; no specific factual showing of unconstitutional delay | Court: Harris gave Board too little time (appealed weeks after RO decision); complaint about speculative future delay or unspecified RO delay is insufficient |
| Whether alternative remedies (Board expedition or mandamus) are available | Harris: implied that waiting is ineffective | Secretary: Board can review constitutional claims and has authority to expedite; mandamus is not warranted without showing Board unavailability | Court: No showing that Board review is unavailable; prior cases (Lamb) suggest mandamus is not appropriate here |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirkpatrick v. Nicholson, 417 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("decision" means grant or denial of the veteran’s claim)
- Tyrues v. Shinseki, 732 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Board denial on one ground can be a final decision under §7266 despite remand on another ground)
- Howard v. Gober, 220 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (interpretation of Board decision finality under Veterans Court statutes)
- Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (veteran’s property interest in benefits and due-process framework)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due-process test: notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner)
- Ledford v. West, 136 F.3d 776 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (constitutional challenges must ordinarily await Board decision; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction when no Board decision exists)
- Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (mandamus relief denied where Board remedies, including expedition, make mandamus inappropriate)