Case: 24-1677 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 04/15/2025
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
JAMES TAYLOR, Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________
2024-1677 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 23-4088, Chief Judge Margaret C. Bartley. ______________________
Decided: April 15, 2025 ______________________
JAMES TAYLOR, Kisimmee, FL, pro se.
DANIEL FALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; CHRISTOPHER O. ADELOYE, DEREK SCADDEN, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. Case: 24-1677 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 04/15/2025
______________________
Before PROST, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. James Taylor appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. Taylor v. McDonough, No. 23-4088, 2023 WL 8270335 (Vet. App. Nov. 30, 2023) (“Order”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. BACKGROUND Mr. Taylor served on active duty in the U.S. Army from January 1979 to March 1997. S.A. 11. 1 On July 10, 2023, he filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Veterans Court. Order, 2023 WL 8270335, at *1. Among other ar- guments, Mr. Taylor asserted that the Department of Vet- erans Affairs (“VA”) (1) refused to address numerous issues in a March 2021 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) de- cision or provide a complete record before the agency; (2) failed to include certain medical reports in his claims file; (3) failed to follow procedure or notice requirements; and (4) improperly included a fictitious dependent to his account. Id. Mr. Taylor also moved for panel review under Rule 35 of the Veterans Court’s Rules of Practice and Pro- cedure. Id. On November 30, 2023, the Veterans Court denied Mr. Taylor’s petition, concluding that he failed to demon- strate entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Id. at *2. The Veterans Court (1) found that Mr. Taylor’s arguments re- garding the Board’s March 2021 decision challenged issues already addressed by the Veterans Court in a January
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix in- cluded with the government’s informal brief. Case: 24-1677 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 04/15/2025
TAYLOR v. COLLINS 3
2023 decision and a writ in those circumstances cannot cir- cumvent an already completed appeals process, id.; (2) dis- missed as moot Mr. Taylor’s argument about missing medical reports because the VA included the reports in its response to Mr. Taylor’s petition, id. at *4; (3) found that Mr. Taylor failed to adequately explain why the VA should have provided him with notice to appeal to the Veterans Court from rating decisions appealable to the Board and not the Veterans Court, id. at *3; and (4) found that it could not discern the specific allegation with respect to any rec- orded dependents because Mr. Taylor failed to adequately explain the alleged error, id. The Veterans Court also de- nied Mr. Taylor’s motion for panel review as premature. Id. at *4. Mr. Taylor timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un- der 38 U.S.C. § 7292. DISCUSSION The scope of our review in an appeal from a Veterans Court’s decision is limited. We may review a Veterans Court’s decision on a rule of law or the validity or interpre- tation of any statue or regulation relied on by the Veterans Court in making the decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). “[W]e review the Veterans Court’s legal determinations de novo.” Blubaugh v. McDonald, 773 F.3d 1310, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We may also review a Veterans Court’s decision on writ of mandamus petitions that “raise legal issues other- wise within our jurisdiction.” Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Although we may determine whether a veteran “has satisfied the legal standard for is- suing the writ,” we may not “review the factual merits of the veteran’s claim.” Id. at 1158. Except with respect to constitutional issues, we “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Case: 24-1677 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 04/15/2025
On appeal, Mr. Taylor appears to raise three main ar- guments: that the Veterans Court (1) failed to consider multiple administrative errors under 38 U.S.C. § 503, re- sulting in his loss of compensation from the Army, Appel- lant’s Informal Br. 1; (2) violated his due process rights by not addressing his motion for reconsideration under 38 U.S.C. § 7103(a) to correct administrative errors, id. at 2– 3; and (3) failed to correct an improper payment involving a new dependent where he did not have a new dependent, id. Mr. Taylor does not contest the legal standard applica- ble to his writ of mandamus petition. While he argues that the Veterans Court failed to consider multiple administra- tive errors under 38 U.S.C. § 503, he does not identify the alleged errors. See id. at 1. To the extent Mr. Taylor’s statements are an attempt to argue that the Veterans Court erred in concluding that he failed to satisfy the legal standard for issuing the writ, we disagree. To obtain a writ of mandamus, a “petitioner must show (1) that he has a clear legal right to relief; (2) that there are no adequate al- ternative legal channels through which the petitioner may obtain that relief, and (3) that the grant of mandamus re- lief is appropriate under the circumstances.” Beasley, 709 F.3d at 1157. Here, Mr. Taylor failed to establish the re- quirements for a writ of mandamus. First, Mr. Taylor’s pe- tition requested that the Veterans Court vacate part of the Board’s March 2021 decision, but the Veterans Court found that it already addressed his arguments in its January 2023 decision. See Order, 2023 WL 8270335, at *2. Second, Mr. Taylor failed to adequately explain his assertions about a fictitious dependent and notice requirements to show a clear legal right to relief. The Veterans Court found that he did not explain the alleged error involving a ficti- tious dependent and that he failed to explain why he should have been given notice to appeal to the Veterans Court de- cisions that are not appealable to the Veterans Court. See id. at *3. Third, the Veterans Court found that the VA Case: 24-1677 Document: 28 Page: 5 Filed: 04/15/2025
TAYLOR v. COLLINS 5
included his allegedly missing medical reports in its re- sponse to the petition. See id. at *4. Accordingly, we affirm the Veterans Court’s holding that Mr. Taylor failed to es- tablish entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Mr. Taylor next appears to raise a due process issue. He asserts that the Veterans Court failed to address his motion for reconsideration under 38 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 24-1677 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 04/15/2025
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
JAMES TAYLOR, Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________
2024-1677 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 23-4088, Chief Judge Margaret C. Bartley. ______________________
Decided: April 15, 2025 ______________________
JAMES TAYLOR, Kisimmee, FL, pro se.
DANIEL FALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; CHRISTOPHER O. ADELOYE, DEREK SCADDEN, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. Case: 24-1677 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 04/15/2025
______________________
Before PROST, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. James Taylor appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. Taylor v. McDonough, No. 23-4088, 2023 WL 8270335 (Vet. App. Nov. 30, 2023) (“Order”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. BACKGROUND Mr. Taylor served on active duty in the U.S. Army from January 1979 to March 1997. S.A. 11. 1 On July 10, 2023, he filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Veterans Court. Order, 2023 WL 8270335, at *1. Among other ar- guments, Mr. Taylor asserted that the Department of Vet- erans Affairs (“VA”) (1) refused to address numerous issues in a March 2021 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) de- cision or provide a complete record before the agency; (2) failed to include certain medical reports in his claims file; (3) failed to follow procedure or notice requirements; and (4) improperly included a fictitious dependent to his account. Id. Mr. Taylor also moved for panel review under Rule 35 of the Veterans Court’s Rules of Practice and Pro- cedure. Id. On November 30, 2023, the Veterans Court denied Mr. Taylor’s petition, concluding that he failed to demon- strate entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Id. at *2. The Veterans Court (1) found that Mr. Taylor’s arguments re- garding the Board’s March 2021 decision challenged issues already addressed by the Veterans Court in a January
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix in- cluded with the government’s informal brief. Case: 24-1677 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 04/15/2025
TAYLOR v. COLLINS 3
2023 decision and a writ in those circumstances cannot cir- cumvent an already completed appeals process, id.; (2) dis- missed as moot Mr. Taylor’s argument about missing medical reports because the VA included the reports in its response to Mr. Taylor’s petition, id. at *4; (3) found that Mr. Taylor failed to adequately explain why the VA should have provided him with notice to appeal to the Veterans Court from rating decisions appealable to the Board and not the Veterans Court, id. at *3; and (4) found that it could not discern the specific allegation with respect to any rec- orded dependents because Mr. Taylor failed to adequately explain the alleged error, id. The Veterans Court also de- nied Mr. Taylor’s motion for panel review as premature. Id. at *4. Mr. Taylor timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un- der 38 U.S.C. § 7292. DISCUSSION The scope of our review in an appeal from a Veterans Court’s decision is limited. We may review a Veterans Court’s decision on a rule of law or the validity or interpre- tation of any statue or regulation relied on by the Veterans Court in making the decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). “[W]e review the Veterans Court’s legal determinations de novo.” Blubaugh v. McDonald, 773 F.3d 1310, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We may also review a Veterans Court’s decision on writ of mandamus petitions that “raise legal issues other- wise within our jurisdiction.” Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Although we may determine whether a veteran “has satisfied the legal standard for is- suing the writ,” we may not “review the factual merits of the veteran’s claim.” Id. at 1158. Except with respect to constitutional issues, we “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Case: 24-1677 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 04/15/2025
On appeal, Mr. Taylor appears to raise three main ar- guments: that the Veterans Court (1) failed to consider multiple administrative errors under 38 U.S.C. § 503, re- sulting in his loss of compensation from the Army, Appel- lant’s Informal Br. 1; (2) violated his due process rights by not addressing his motion for reconsideration under 38 U.S.C. § 7103(a) to correct administrative errors, id. at 2– 3; and (3) failed to correct an improper payment involving a new dependent where he did not have a new dependent, id. Mr. Taylor does not contest the legal standard applica- ble to his writ of mandamus petition. While he argues that the Veterans Court failed to consider multiple administra- tive errors under 38 U.S.C. § 503, he does not identify the alleged errors. See id. at 1. To the extent Mr. Taylor’s statements are an attempt to argue that the Veterans Court erred in concluding that he failed to satisfy the legal standard for issuing the writ, we disagree. To obtain a writ of mandamus, a “petitioner must show (1) that he has a clear legal right to relief; (2) that there are no adequate al- ternative legal channels through which the petitioner may obtain that relief, and (3) that the grant of mandamus re- lief is appropriate under the circumstances.” Beasley, 709 F.3d at 1157. Here, Mr. Taylor failed to establish the re- quirements for a writ of mandamus. First, Mr. Taylor’s pe- tition requested that the Veterans Court vacate part of the Board’s March 2021 decision, but the Veterans Court found that it already addressed his arguments in its January 2023 decision. See Order, 2023 WL 8270335, at *2. Second, Mr. Taylor failed to adequately explain his assertions about a fictitious dependent and notice requirements to show a clear legal right to relief. The Veterans Court found that he did not explain the alleged error involving a ficti- tious dependent and that he failed to explain why he should have been given notice to appeal to the Veterans Court de- cisions that are not appealable to the Veterans Court. See id. at *3. Third, the Veterans Court found that the VA Case: 24-1677 Document: 28 Page: 5 Filed: 04/15/2025
TAYLOR v. COLLINS 5
included his allegedly missing medical reports in its re- sponse to the petition. See id. at *4. Accordingly, we affirm the Veterans Court’s holding that Mr. Taylor failed to es- tablish entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Mr. Taylor next appears to raise a due process issue. He asserts that the Veterans Court failed to address his motion for reconsideration under 38 U.S.C. § 7103(a). The Veterans Court’s decision, however, did not involve § 7103(a). Characterization of an issue “as constitutional in nature does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we oth- erwise lack.” Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999). To the extent Mr. Taylor’s statements are an at- tempt to argue that the Veterans Court denied his motion for panel review under Rule 35 of the Veterans Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, we disagree. Rule 35 states that “[a] party in a case decided by a single Judge may move for a decision by a panel of the Court.” U.S. Vet. App. R. 35(b). The Veterans Court correctly denied the mo- tion as premature because Rule 35 is a post-decision re- view, and the Veterans Court had not yet issued a decision on the petition. Mr. Taylor’s other arguments about a missing file and new dependent challenge the Veterans Court’s underlying factual findings, which are beyond our jurisdiction. Mr. Taylor contends that the VA voided a 2013 medical re- port due to his missing file. The Veterans Court, however, found that the VA included the medical report in its peti- tion response. See Order, 2023 WL 8270335, at *4. He fur- ther asserts that the VA erroneously issued a payment involving a new dependent in 2019 where he did not have a new dependent. The Veterans Court, however, found that it was unable to discern, based on Mr. Taylor’s peti- tion, the specific error with respect to any recorded depend- ents. Id. at *3. The Veterans Court noted that according to the VA there is no evidence that the VA added a fictitious dependent, rather, the VA removed his former spouse in 2021 and added his current spouse in 2022. Id. at *2. His Case: 24-1677 Document: 28 Page: 6 Filed: 04/15/2025
arguments, thus, raise issues about factual findings. We do not have jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s un- derlying factual findings and dismiss his appeal of those findings. CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Taylor’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND DISMISSED-IN-PART COSTS No costs.