Terry G. Watson v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TERRY G. WATSON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-2148
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-1662, Judge Grant Jaquith.
______________________
Decided: November 8, 2023
______________________
T ERRY G. WATSON, Hartshorn, MO, 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. B OYNTON , T ARA K. HOGAN, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before N EWMAN, CHEN, and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit
Judges.
Case: 22-2148 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2023

-- 1 of 5 --

WATSON v. MCDONOUGH 2
N EWMAN, Circuit Judge.
This case concerns the jurisdiction of the Court of Vet-
erans Claims (the “Veterans Court”) to act on a petition for
extraordinary relief, when the veteran does not have a re-
lated claim pending within the Department of Veterans Af-
fairs (the “VA”) administrative system. We conclude that
the Veterans Court correctly held that it does not have ju-
risdiction to consider this petition.1
D ISCUSSION
Terry G. Watson is a veteran of the United States
Army, rated 100% disabled. At the time he filed this peti-
tion, he had for eleven years been incarcerated in a Mis-
souri state prison. Missouri law requires the state to
provide incarcerated persons with “necessary medicine,
dental care or medical attention necessary or proper.” M O.
REV . STAT . § 221.120 (2016). Mr. Watson states that this
obligation has not been met, despite his many requests to
the VA and state and federal agencies and courts.
A
Mr. Watson filed a petition to the Veterans Court, ask-
ing the court to order the VA to provide him with adequate
health care for his service-related afflictions. In an initial
response, the Veterans Court explained that it “can only
grant a petition if the veteran alleges an issue with a pend-
ing claim at VA. And that claim must also involve an issue
that could be appealed to this Court.” Initial Order at 1.
The Veterans Court asked Mr. Watson to “inform[] the
Court whether he has a pending claim with VA to which
1 Watson v. McDonough, No. 22-1662 (Vet. App. May
18, 2022) (unpublished) (“Initial Order”); 2022 WL 2255622
(June 23, 2022) (“Final Order”).
Case: 22-2148 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2023

-- 2 of 5 --

WATSON v. MCDONOUGH 3
his petition relates or has no such claim and intends a di-
rect challenge to 38 C.F.R. § 17.38(c)(5).” Id. at 2.
Mr. Watson responded that he “has filed complaint at
the VA multiples of times including the Board who have
refused to take up the claim.” Final Order at *1 (quoting
Watson Response to Initial Order at 1). But he mentioned
no specific pending claim with the VA. The Veterans Court
explained that its mandamus authority is limited to mat-
ters pending at VA or otherwise within the court’s jurisdic-
tion; the court dismissed the petition, stating:
Because the petitioner has not alleged that his pe-
tition is related to a claim currently pending at VA,
nor has he otherwise alleged an unlawful act that
falls under this Court’s jurisdiction, a writ of man-
damus here would not be in aid of this Court’s ju-
risdiction. Thus, this Court lacks authority to issue
such a writ.
Id. at *2.
Mr. Watson appeals, reciting and documenting his
years of attempting to receive adequate medical care. He
argues that the VA is charged with assuring that veterans
receive the care authorized by statute and asks the Veter-
ans Court to order the VA to accept that obligation and im-
plement a solution.
B
The government responds that statute and regulation
absolve the VA of this obligation on the facts hereof, where
Missouri law provides for state medical care for incarcer-
ated persons. The primary federal statute concerning med-
ical care for state-incarcerated veterans is 38 U.S.C.
§ 1710(h):
[§ 1710](h) Nothing in this section requires the
Secretary to furnish care to a veteran to whom an-
other agency of Federal, State, or local government
Case: 22-2148 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 11/08/2023

-- 3 of 5 --

WATSON v. MCDONOUGH 4
has a duty under law to provide care in an institu-
tion of such government.
Federal regulation 38 C.F.R. § 17.38(c) explicitly excludes
certain federal medical benefits for veterans who are in-
mates of a state institution that has a duty of care:
[§ 17.38](c) In addition to the care specifically ex-
cluded from the “medical benefits package” under
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the “medical
benefits package” does not include the following:
* * *
(5) Hospital and outpatient care for a veteran who
is either a patient or inmate in an institution of an-
other government agency if that agency has a duty
to give the care or services.
Mr. Watson argues that “[t]he Secretary is bound to pro-
vide mental health coverage” required by veterans, Watson
Br. 2, and he asks the Veterans Court, and now this court,
to require the VA to assure that he receives the care neces-
sary for his service-related afflictions.
C
Appeals of decisions of the Veterans Court are con-
signed to the Federal Circuit. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (c). We
give de novo review to rulings of statutory interpretation
and constitutional issues. However, by statute, we have no
authority to review factual findings by the Veterans Court.
38 U.S.C. § 7292(d).
Our authority includes review of how the Veterans
Court interprets its own jurisdiction, Skaar v. McDonough,
48 F.4th 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2022), and review of actions
on petitions on matters within the court’s jurisdiction,
Wolfe v. McDonough, 28 F.4th 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
This appeal concerns the Veterans Court’s interpreta-
tion of its jurisdiction as applied to Mr. Watson’s petition
Case: 22-2148 Document: 33 Page: 4 Filed: 11/08/2023

-- 4 of 5 --

WATSON v. MCDONOUGH 5
for extraordinary relief. The question is the availability of
direct petition for mandamus to the Veterans Court, on the
facts hereof. We do not consider the authority of any other
court or agency with respect to any issue raised.
The Veterans Court held that its jurisdiction is limited
to a “pending claim at VA,” Initial Order at 1, such that
“[w]hen individuals file petitions for writs of mandamus,
this Court’s authority is limited to issuing a writ in aid of
the Court’s prospective jurisdiction,” Final Order at *1 (cit-
ing 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)).
The government states that the Veterans Court has no
jurisdiction to grant this petition because Mr. Watson does
not have “either a claim pending before VA or an appeal
pending at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.” Gov’t Br. 2.
The government states that “Mr. Watson had to demon-
strate that he was pursuing some action before the agency
over which the Veterans Court could eventually have juris-
diction.” Id. at 7 (first citing Cox v. West, 149 F.3d 1360,
1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998); and then citing Baker Perkins, Inc.
v. Werner & Pfleiderer Corp., 710 F.2d 1561, 1565 (Fed. Cir.
1983)).
We conclude that the Veterans Court correctly held
that its authority does not extend to petitions from veter-
ans who do not have a claim pending before the VA or the
Board, because the court does not have prospective juris-
diction unless there is such a claim. See Wolfe, 28 F.4th at
1359 (finding the Veterans Court does not have jurisdiction
to issue a writ of mandamus for “a party [who] has not ini-
tiated any proceeding whatsoever”). Thus Mr. Watson’s pe-
tition was correctly dismissed.
The decision of the Veterans Court is
AFFIRMED.
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 22-2148 Document: 33 Page: 5 Filed: 11/08/2023

-- 5 of 5 --