Martin v. O'Rourke
891 F.3d 1338
Fed. Cir.2018Background
- Nine consolidated appellants (veterans or spouses) sought writs of mandamus from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims alleging unreasonable delays in VA processing of disability-claims appeals. The Veterans Court denied relief; appellants appealed to this court.
- Typical VA appeals process: Notice of Disagreement → Statement of the Case (avg. ~500 days) → Form 9 → certification to BVA (the 2.6-hour clerical task averages ~773 days) → transfer/docketing (avg. ~321 days); overall average from Notice to BVA decision >5 years.
- Veterans argued Veterans Court used an improper standard (Costanza) for mandamus/delay claims and that the delays violated due process (Mathews balancing).
- The Veterans Court had required a showing that delay was so extraordinary as to amount to an arbitrary refusal to act (Costanza standard). Appellants urged adoption of the D.C. Circuit’s TRAC six-factor balancing test.
- This court held the Veterans Court applied the wrong standard, adopted the TRAC factors as the appropriate framework for VA delay mandamus petitions, vacated and remanded several appeals for reconsideration under TRAC, and dismissed some appeals as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper mandamus/delay standard | Costanza is too deferential; TRAC’s six-factor test should govern unreasonable-delay mandamus | Costanza properly accounts for VA resource constraints and system burdens | TRAC six-factor balancing test adopted for VA unreasonable-delay mandamus claims; Costanza is not the correct standard |
| Whether delays violated due process | Systemic and case-specific delays deprive veterans of property/benefits; Mathews balancing supports relief | Any constitutional claim depends on whether delay is unreasonable per statutory mandamus standard; no separate analysis required if mandamus resolves delay | Veterans Court to apply TRAC; if TRAC shows unreasonable delay, separate Mathews analysis need not be required because claims substantially overlap |
| Use of aggregate average-delay statistics | Averages show systemic unreasonable delay supporting mandamus | Reliance on averages is speculative; mandamus must be based on facts of each individual case | Court agrees statistics are of limited use; mandamus must be grounded in the individual case facts though TRAC permits consideration of broader context |
| Consideration of agency resource/prioritization concerns | Veterans’ individual interests must weigh heavily; Costanza overweights VA burdens | Courts should defer to VA’s allocation of limited resources; Costanza accounts for that | TRAC includes a factor (4th) to consider agency priorities/resources, balancing veteran interests and practical limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (articulates six-factor test for unreasonable agency delay mandamus)
- Costanza v. West, 12 Vet.App. 133 (Vet. App. 1999) (prior Veterans Court per curiam standard requiring delay tantamount to refusal to act)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (procedural due process balancing test)
- Vietnam Veterans of Am. v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (unreasonable delay and due process overlap; mandamus may be triggered earlier)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (U.S. 2004) (mandamus issuance is discretionary; traditional mandamus requirements apply)
- In re A Community Voice, 878 F.3d 779 (9th Cir. 2017) (Ninth Circuit applies TRAC factors to unreasonable-delay mandamus)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1985) (courts defer to agency priority/resource judgments)