Trevino v. McDonald
671 F. App'x 790
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Gloria Treviño, a service‑disabled veteran, sued the VA in federal district court alleging deficient VA treatment and seeking reimbursement for care obtained from non‑VA providers; the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Treviño then petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for a writ of mandamus seeking relief and reimbursement tied to alleged deficient VA care.
- A single Veterans Court judge denied the petition, finding Treviño had not shown exhaustion of administrative remedies; the VA later sent her guidance on proper reimbursement procedures.
- Treviño sought reconsideration and panel review; the Veterans Court denied reconsideration, granted panel consideration, and unanimously affirmed the denial (concluding no overlooked law or fact, no conflict with precedent, and no issue warranting precedential decision).
- Treviño appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing the Veterans Court’s analysis was incomplete and reasserting factual complaints; she did not challenge the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation.
- The Federal Circuit concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the appeal raised factual disputes and arguments about application of law to facts rather than non‑frivolous legal questions within 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c) scope, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court denial of a mandamus petition | Treviño contends the Veterans Court misapplied law and overlooked facts entitling her to a writ and reimbursement | VA/Veterans Court argue the petition challenges application of law to facts and administrative exhaustion, not any statute or regulation’s validity or interpretation | Held: No jurisdiction — appeal raises factual/applicational issues outside §7292(c) review scope |
| Whether Treviño satisfied legal standard for mandamus | Treviño asserts facts show clear legal right to relief and writ warranted | Veterans Court viewed the matter as discretionary and noted failure to show entitlement or exhaustion | Held: Federal Circuit will not review factual merits; decline to address whether mandamus standard met because jurisdiction absent |
| Whether Rule 12(b)(6) standards apply to mandamus petitions | Treviño analogizes her pleading to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for de novo review | Respondent and court say mandamus is discretionary and requires showing a clear legal right, not Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards | Held: Rule 12(b)(6) analogy rejected; mandamus review is discretionary and different standard |
| Whether Veterans Court erred by not considering alleged facts and exhaustion | Treviño argues the court overlooked a set of facts and incomplete analysis | Veterans Court held she failed to demonstrate oversight or conflict with precedent and did not exhaust remedies | Held: Federal Circuit will not resolve factual disputes; affirms lack of jurisdiction to decide these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (jurisdictional limits on appeals from Veterans Court; mandamus legal‑standard review only)
- Cox v. West, 149 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (All Writs Act allows mandamus only in aid of court's existing jurisdiction)
- Kam‑Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (example of de novo review for certain issues like Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (mandamus issuance is largely discretionary)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6) — contrasted with mandamus requirements)