Philippeaux v. Shulkin
702 F. App'x 977
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Eddy Jean Philippeaux is a Navy and Air Force veteran with prior service‑connected awards: psychotic disorder (50% effective Feb. 27, 1995; 100% effective July 1, 2008) and gastroesophageal reflux disease with gastritis (10% effective Feb. 27, 1995).
- Philippeaux appealed multiple issues to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, including earlier effective dates, higher ratings, service connection for traumatic brain injury, and entitlement to TDIU (total disability based on individual unemployability).
- The Board remanded all issues to the Regional Office for further development, concluding the prior grants were not complete as to effective dates and ratings and TDIU claims were not mooted.
- Thirty‑nine days after the Board remand, Philippeaux petitioned the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for a writ of mandamus seeking (among other things) compelment of RO compliance, processing of new dependent claims, a full claims file, earlier TDIU effective dates, and compensation for his mother’s death.
- The Veterans Court denied the mandamus petition, finding no demonstrated refusal to act or unreasonable delay by the Secretary, that new claims must be filed below (writ is no substitute for the appeals process), and that Philippeaux already had received his claims file.
- Philippeaux appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing excessive delay violating due process and equal protection and asserting the Veterans Court failed to address tort claims related to his mother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should issue to compel RO compliance with Board remand | Philippeaux: long (22‑year) delay and ongoing VA inaction warrant writ | Secretary/Veterans Court: no refusal to act; remand was recent; no unreasonable delay shown | Denied — no clear and indisputable right to writ; passage of time alone insufficient |
| Whether mandamus may be used to obtain benefits for dependents and retroactive awards | Philippeaux: Veterans Court should compel processing and retroactive awards | Veterans Court: claimant must file claims at agency level; writ cannot substitute for normal appeals | Denied — must initiate claims before VA; writ inappropriate substitute |
| Whether Philippeaux was entitled to a copy of his claims file via mandamus | Philippeaux: seeks complete claims file | Veterans Court/Secretary: record shows he already received a copy | Denied — record shows file produced; no basis for writ |
| Whether the Veterans Court could adjudicate tort/death claims related to his mother | Philippeaux: Veterans Court failed to decide tort claims raised in petition | Veterans Court/Secretary: Court’s jurisdiction is limited to Board decisions; tort claims were not raised before the Board | Denied — court lacks jurisdiction to consider new tort claims on mandamus review |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394 (mandamus is a drastic remedy; extraordinary circumstances required)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (mandamus standards: lack of alternatives, clear right, discretionary balance)
- Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154 (three‑part Cheney test applies to Veterans Court writs)
- Cox v. West, 149 F.3d 1360 (All Writs Act does not expand court jurisdiction over VA matters)
- Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378 (standards for reviewing Veterans Court denial of mandamus)