Karissa Wiggins v. Douglas A. Collins, 24-4591

Background

Karissa Wiggins, an Air Force veteran, appealed the denial of service connection for PTSD and her rating for MDD, both allegedly stemming from military sexual trauma (MST).
Wiggins requested advancement of her appeal due to financial hardship and mental health symptoms, but the Board denied advancement in May 2022, citing insufficient evidence of severe hardship.
In July 2024, Wiggins petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus, seeking expedited review of her appeal under 38 U.S.C. § 7112(b) (pertaining to MST claims).
The Court convened a panel to consider whether § 7112(b) mandates expedited Board adjudication for MST cases and whether the delay in Wiggins’s case justified extraordinary relief.
The Court examined the statutory language, legislative intent, and VA's systemic delays, referencing TRAC factors and Board processes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Does § 7112(b) require automatic expedited adjudication for MST claims?	Wiggins argued that the statute and pro-veteran canon mandate expedited Board review for MST cases.	Secretary argued § 7112(b) only requires a prompt determination if a case is MST-related, not automatic expedited adjudication.	§ 7112(b) does not require expedited adjudication, only prompt identification of MST claims.
Is Board delay in adjudicating Wiggins's appeal unreasonable/unlawful under TRAC?	Delay is unreasonable, especially given MST-related claims deserve expedition per Congressional intent.	Systemic Board delays are consistent with docket norms; Wiggins’s wait is not unusually long or unreasonable under standard wait times.	The delay, though regrettable, is not unreasonable or unlawful under current TRAC analysis.
Has Wiggins shown a clear and indisputable right to a writ of mandamus?	Delay plus MST claim shows clear right; no alternative remedy.	No clear right; Board proposed she provide more evidence for advancement.	No clear and indisputable right to relief; she has not exhausted administrative remedies.
Does the Board’s denial of advancement violate the pro-veteran canon or Congress’s intent?	Pro-veteran canon and legislative history support a reading favorable to veterans; Board ignored MST context.	Statute is unambiguous; canon does not override clear statutory text.	Pro-veteran canon cannot create a right absent statutory basis; Board’s denial did not violate Congress’s intent.

Key Cases Cited

Telecomms. Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (establishes standards for reviewing agency delay - the TRAC factors)
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (standards for writ of mandamus—clear right and lack of alternative means)
Martin v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (TRAC factors apply to claims of delay in VA adjudications)
Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (1994) (pro-veteran canon—interpretive doubt resolved in veteran’s favor)