James Taylor v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
______________________
J AMES T AYLOR, Kisimmee, FL, pro se.
D ANIEL F ALKNOR, 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, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY ; CHRISTOPHER O. ADELOYE, D EREK SCADDEN,
Office of General Counsel, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 24-1677 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 04/15/2025

-- 1 of 6 --

TAYLOR v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before P ROST , REYNA, and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
P ER 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: 2 Filed: 04/15/2025

-- 2 of 6 --

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.
D ISCUSSION
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: 3 Filed: 04/15/2025

-- 3 of 6 --

TAYLOR v. COLLINS 4
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: 4 Filed: 04/15/2025

-- 4 of 6 --

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: 5 Filed: 04/15/2025

-- 5 of 6 --

TAYLOR v. COLLINS 6
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.
Case: 24-1677 Document: 28 Page: 6 Filed: 04/15/2025

-- 6 of 6 --