Rose v. O'Rourke

Federal Circuit

Rose v. O'Rourke

891 F.3d 1366

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedJune 7, 2018

Docket2017-1762; 2017-1789; 2017-1796; 2017-1926

StatusPublished

This text of 891 F.3d 1366 (Rose v. O'Rourke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rose v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Prost, Chief Judge.

*1367 The four individual appellants in this consolidated appeal are veterans who have appealed the Department of Veterans Affairs' ("VA") denial of their claims for service-connected disability benefits. Based on delays that have occurred in each of their cases, Appellants petitioned for writs of mandamus, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("Veterans Court") for relief. The Veterans Court denied the petitions.

For the reasons stated in our decision in Martin v. O'Rourke , No. 17-1747, we remand the appeals of Mr. Rose and Ms. Punt so that their mandamus petitions may be considered under the TRAC standard.

Regretfully, the parties have informed us that Mr. Miller passed away during the course of this appeal. ECF No. 77-1 at 2. As such, his appeal in this case is moot. With respect to Mr. Daniels, the VA granted his claim for benefits in December 2017. ECF No. 77-1 at 2. To the extent Mr. Daniels intends to file a Notice of Disagreement with that recent decision, he remains free to, in the future, file a mandamus petition based on delay, should the need arise. His currently pending appeal, however, is moot.

Accordingly, we vacate and remand the appeals of Mr. Rose and Ms. Punt for *1368 reconsideration under the TRAC standard, and we dismiss the appeals of Mr. Miller and Mr. Daniels as moot.

DISMISSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED

COSTS

Costs to Appellants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Prost, Chief Judge.

*1367 The four individual appellants in this consolidated appeal are veterans who have appealed the Department of Veterans Affairs' ("VA") denial of their claims for service-connected disability benefits. Based on delays that have occurred in each of their cases, Appellants petitioned for writs of mandamus, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("Veterans Court") for relief. The Veterans Court denied the petitions.

For the reasons stated in our decision in Martin v. O'Rourke , No. 17-1747, we remand the appeals of Mr. Rose and Ms. Punt so that their mandamus petitions may be considered under the TRAC standard.

Regretfully, the parties have informed us that Mr. Miller passed away during the course of this appeal. ECF No. 77-1 at 2. As such, his appeal in this case is moot. With respect to Mr. Daniels, the VA granted his claim for benefits in December 2017. ECF No. 77-1 at 2. To the extent Mr. Daniels intends to file a Notice of Disagreement with that recent decision, he remains free to, in the future, file a mandamus petition based on delay, should the need arise. His currently pending appeal, however, is moot.

Accordingly, we vacate and remand the appeals of Mr. Rose and Ms. Punt for *1368 reconsideration under the TRAC standard, and we dismiss the appeals of Mr. Miller and Mr. Daniels as moot.

DISMISSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED

COSTS

Costs to Appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

891 F.3d 1366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-orourke-cafc-2018.