Willie A. Key v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
WILLIE A. KEY,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1736
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-7532, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: March 10, 2025
______________________
W ILLIE A. K EY , Charleston, SC, pro se.
ANNE DELMARE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, W ILLIAM JAMES G RIMALDI , PATRICIA M.
M C CARTHY.
______________________
Case: 24-1736 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 1 of 6 --

KEY v. COLLINS 2
Before TARANTO and H UGHES, Circuit Judges, and
BARNETT , Judge.1
P ER CURIAM.
Willie A. Key, proceeding pro se, appeals the decision
of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissing in
part and denying in part his petition for a writ of manda-
mus in relation to his case challenging the validity of a debt
he owes the Veterans Health Administration. To the extent
Mr. Key’s argument on appeal challenges the regulation
authorizing collection of his debt while he contests it in an
administrative appeal, we affirm the Veterans Court’s
holding that this issue was improperly raised in a manda-
mus petition rather than as part of his appeal; to the extent
he challenges the application of the regulation to his case,
we lack jurisdiction and therefore dismiss this claim.
I
Mr. Key is a veteran who served on active duty from
July 1965 to September 1968. In 2018, the Department of
Veterans Affairs “informed Mr. Key that ‘he is responsible
for copayments for medical care and prescriptions he re-
ceived from [October 11,] 2017 to [October 10,] 2018’ and
that the medical facility at which he received care would
bill him accordingly.” P.A. 1.2 Mr. Key pursued an admin-
istrative appeal challenging this debt. His appeal reached
the Board of Veterans Appeals in May 2022. The Board re-
manded the case to the VA, directing it to: (1) verify
whether Mr. Key had signed a VA Form 10-10EZR in Oc-
tober 2017 at the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center in
Charleston, South Carolina; and (2) associate several doc-
uments with his claims file, including two personal letters
1 Honorable Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge, United
States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
2 “P.A.” refers to the Appendix attached to Mr. Key’s
Informal Brief.
Case: 24-1736 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 2 of 6 --

KEY v. COLLINS 3
from October and November 2018, a signed HEC Form 200-
1A from November 2018, and portions of a financial report
received in November 2018. S.A. 2–3.3 While waiting for
the VA to process the Board’s remand, Mr. Key received
notice from the Department of the Treasury that it “would
withhold (or offset) ‘up to 15[%] of [his] monthly Social Se-
curity benefit payment beginning no sooner than [March]
2023’ to satisfy the debt he owes to [the Veterans Health
Administration].” P.A. 1 (first two alterations in original).
Mr. Key submitted a mandamus petition dated Decem-
ber 5, 2023, to the Veterans Court seeking an order requir-
ing the Board to direct the VA to “(1) refund all monies
withheld from [his] social security benefit payments since
March 3, 2023; (2) deny, with prejudice, [the VA’s] claim for
copayments in the instant appeal; (3) cancel any and all co-
payments owed or allegedly owed to [the VA] by [him]; and
(4) to vacate its REMAND in the instant appeal on the
ground of lack of expeditious treatment.” S.A. 4.
On December 27, 2023, while Mr. Key’s petition was
pending before the Veterans Court, the VA notified
Mr. Key that it had located all the documents identified in
the Board’s May 2022 remand order and associated them
with his file. P.A. 1.
On March 4, 2024, the Veterans Court dismissed
Mr. Key’s request to vacate the Board’s remand order as
moot because the VA had since complied with the Board’s
remand directives. Regarding Mr. Key’s remaining re-
quests for relief, the Veterans Court concluded Mr. Key
was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to stop the VA’s
attempt to collect on his debt because his petition did not
demonstrate that he had taken any action within 30 days
of receiving notice of the debt that would entitle him to a
3 “S.A.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix at-
tached to the Government’s Informal Response Brief.
Case: 24-1736 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 3 of 6 --

KEY v. COLLINS 4
deferral of payment under 38 C.F.R. § 1.912(c)(1)-(3). The
Veterans Court further noted that Mr. Key could have
raised his argument for deferral of collection on his debt as
a substantive matter in his existing appeal and credited
the Secretary of Veterans Affair’s argument that Mr. Key’s
claim was thus “not ripe for consideration in the context of
a petition for a writ of mandamus.” P.A. 2.
Mr. Key then submitted a motion to vacate the Veter-
ans Court’s order, which the court construed as a motion
for single-judge reconsideration of its order. The court de-
nied this motion for reconsideration. Mr. Key timely ap-
pealed.
II
We have jurisdiction to review Veterans Court deci-
sions and decide “any challenge to the validity of any stat-
ute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to
interpret constitutional and statutory provisions.”
38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). Unless relevant to a constitutional is-
sue, we lack jurisdiction to review challenges to factual de-
terminations or applications of a law or regulation to the
facts of a particular case. Id. § 7292(d)(2).
We have jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional
issues addressed by the Veterans Court’s rulings on man-
damus petitions. Lamb v. Principi¸ 284 F.3d 1378, 1381–82
(Fed. Cir. 2002). While we may determine whether the Vet-
erans Court “abused its discretion or committed other legal
error” in denying a mandamus petition, we cannot review
factual issues. Id. at 1381–82, 1384.
III
In his informal brief, Mr. Key states “31 C.F.R. § 285.4
allows collection by offset of ‘legally enforceable debts.’ The
debt allegedly owed to the VA is not legally enforceable
while under appeal.” Petitioner’s Informal Br. at 1. It is un-
clear whether Mr. Key’s challenge is to the application of
Case: 24-1736 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 4 of 6 --

KEY v. COLLINS 5
this regulation to the facts of his case or to the regulation
itself.
To the extent Mr. Key’s argument on appeal is that the
regulation was improperly applied to find that his debts
were collectable while being challenged on appeal, we do
not have jurisdiction to review such an application of law
to fact. For instance, Mr. Key argues on appeal that the
Veterans Court “incorrectly decided that [the] VA had not
unreasonably delayed processing the [r]emand.” Peti-
tioner’s Informal Br. at 2 (emphasis omitted). He further
contends that the Veterans Court “failed to decide whether
[his] Social Security payment is subject to offset for ‘debts’
owed to the VA while awaiting a decision on [his] waiver
request.” Id. (emphasis omitted). These arguments raise is-
sues of application of law to fact that we do not have juris-
diction to review.
To the extent Mr. Key’s argument on appeal challenges
the regulation itself, we agree with the Veterans Court that
a petition for mandamus was the incorrect vehicle for this
challenge. “Mandamus . . . [is a] drastic and extraordinary
remed[y] . . . reserved for really extraordinary causes.”
Lamb¸ 284 F.3d at 1382. To obtain relief via a mandamus
petition, “the petitioner must show (1) that he has a clear
legal right to relief; (2) that there are no adequate alterna-
tive legal channels through which the petitioner may ob-
tain that relief, and (3) that the grant of mandamus relief
is appropriate under the circumstances.” Beasley v.
Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “It is well
established that mandamus is unavailable when there is
an adequate remedy by appeal.” Wolfe v. McDonough,
28 F.4th 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
The Veterans Court correctly noted that “if Mr. Key be-
lieves that deferral [of collection of his debt] should have
occurred, that is an argument he can raise through his [ex-
isting] appeal” of this debt, and this argument is thus “not
ripe for consideration in the context of a petition for a writ
Case: 24-1736 Document: 23 Page: 5 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 5 of 6 --

KEY v. COLLINS 6
of mandamus.” P.A. 2. Mr. Key has not shown that the ad-
ministrative appeal process is not a viable path to obtain
the deferral of payment he seeks. The Veterans Court ac-
cordingly did not abuse its discretion or otherwise legally
err in denying Mr. Key’s mandamus petition.
IV
We have considered the remainder of Mr. Key’s argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons stated
above, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1736 Document: 23 Page: 6 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 6 of 6 --