Philippeaux v. McDonough
21-1774
| Fed. Cir. | Sep 7, 2021Background
- Philippeaux served in the Navy (1972–1980); struck his head in 1977 and later sought benefits for traumatic brain injury (TBI).
- He filed a VA claim in 2009 for TBI and related conditions (including hyperthyroidism).
- The Board denied service connection for TBI and TBI residuals on March 16, 2018; Philippeaux appealed to the Veterans Court.
- The Veterans Court remanded in 2019 for the Board to address favorable evidence; Philippeaux attempted to appeal the remand to the Federal Circuit (dismissed).
- On remand, Philippeaux moved to vacate the March 2018 Board decision alleging the Board failed to adjudicate a hyperthyroidism claim; the Board denied that motion.
- Philippeaux petitioned the Veterans Court for a writ of mandamus (Feb. 2021), arguing (1) the Board wrongly denied his motion to vacate and (2) VA unreasonably delayed implementing the remand; the Veterans Court denied relief and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus may compel the Board to vacate the March 16, 2018 decision for failing to adjudicate a hyperthyroidism claim | Philippeaux: Board failed to adjudicate hyperthyroidism and mandamus is appropriate to correct that omission | Government: Any challenge to the Board decision should proceed through the normal appeals process; mandamus is not a substitute | Denied — mandamus inappropriate because an adequate alternative (normal appeal of any Board determination on remand) exists |
| Whether VA unreasonably delayed implementing the Veterans Court's remand order | Philippeaux: VA/Board delayed adjudication on remand unreasonably | Government: Any intervals without Board action were short and partly due to appeals; Board lacked jurisdiction while appeals were pending | Denied — no unreasonable delay shown; Board had limited time and was constrained by parallel appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367 (mandamus standard; extraordinary remedy, not substitute for appeal)
- Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154 (review limited to whether petitioner satisfied legal standard for writ)
- Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378 (standard of review for denial of mandamus — abuse of discretion)
- Cayat v. Nicholson, 429 F.3d 1331 (limits on review of factual determinations under 38 U.S.C. § 7292)
- Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350 (Board lacks jurisdiction to proceed while appeal is pending)
- Philippeaux v. Wilkie, [citation="814 F. App'x 603"] (Fed. Cir. 2020) (prior appeal from remand dismissal)