Summary
**Martin v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2018)** – The Federal Circuit held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims applied the wrong legal standard when evaluating mandamus petitions alleging unreasonable delay in VA disability benefits adjudication. The court adopted the six-factor **TRAC** test (from *Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC*) to replace the Veterans Court's more restrictive *Costanza* standard, requiring consideration of: (1) a "rule of reason" for agency action; (2) any congressional timetable; (3) the heightened importance of human health and welfare; (4) the effect on competing agency priorities; (5) the nature and extent of interests prejudiced; and (6) that no showing of impropriety is required. The court vacated denials of mandamus in six cases and remanded for reconsideration under TRAC, dismissing three appeals as moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Veterans Court applied the proper legal standard for evaluating mandamus petitions based on unreasonable delay in the VA's adjudication of benefits claims.
- Whether the delays violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
Holdings
- The Veterans Court should apply the six-factor TRAC standard (Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC) as guidance, not the Costanza standard.
- The appeals of Sarah Aktepy (BVA issued decision), Betty D. Scyphers (original delays reset), and Marvin Myers (death) are moot and dismissed.
Key quotations
“Although we do not opine as to whether we agree with the Veterans Court's conclusion in each case, we hold that the Veterans Court did not apply the proper standard for evaluating mandamus petitions based on unreasonable delay.” (at 1341)
“Accordingly, today we adopt the TRAC standard as the appropriate standard for the Veterans Court to use in evaluating mandamus petitions based on alleged unreasonable delay.” (at 1348)
“For the reasons above, we hold that the Veterans Court should look to the TRAC factors as guidance when evaluating mandamus petitions based on unreasonable delay in the VA's adjudication of benefits claims.” (at 1349)
Factual background
The appellants are veterans or spouses of veterans who sought service-connected disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). After the VA denied their claims, they initiated the administrative appeal process. The VA's process involves multiple steps: filing a Notice of Disagreement, preparation of a Statement of the Case (SOC) (average 500 days), filing a Form 9 appeal, certification of the appeal (average 773 days), and transfer to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) for docketing (average 321 days). The total average time from Notice of Disagreement to BVA decision is over five years. The appellants experienced significant delays in their individual cases, prompting them to file mandamus petitions in the Veterans Court, alleging unreasonable delay and due process violations.
Procedural history
The veterans petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for writs of mandamus due to delays in their disability benefits claims. The Veterans Court denied the petitions. The veterans appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Remand instructions
We vacate and remand the appeals of Mr. Martin, Mr. Jean, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Meissgeier, Ms. Mote, and Mr. Rhodes for reconsideration under the TRAC standard. The appeals of Mr. Myers, Ms. Scyphers, and Ms. Aktepy are dismissed as moot.