Edward Thomas Rose v. Peter O’rourke, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
EDWARD THOMAS ROSE,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
PETER O’ROURKE, ACTING SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE PUNT,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
PETER O’ROURKE, ACTING SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR DANIELS,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
PETER O’ROURKE, ACTING SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 1 of 3 --

ROSE v. O ’ROURKE 2
HERBERT MITCHELL MILLER,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
PETER O’ROURKE, ACTING SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2017-1762, 2017-1789, 2017-1796, 2017-1926
______________________
Appeals from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in Nos. 16-2494, 16-2498, 16-2505, 16-
2510, Chief Judge Robert N. Davis.
______________________
Decided: June 7, 2018
______________________
JOHN AUBREY CHANDLER, King & Spalding LLP,
Atlanta, GA, argued for claimants-appellants. Also
represented by ELIZABETH VRANICAR TANIS ; CHRISTOPHER
ROBERT H EALY, Washington, DC; THOMAS G. H ENTOFF,
LIAM JAMES M ONTGOMERY, STEPHEN RABER , Williams &
Connolly LLP, Washington, DC.
ALEXANDER O RLANDO CANIZARES , Commercial Litiga-
tion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.
Also represented by CHAD A. READLER, ROBERT E.
K IRSCHMAN , JR., M ARTIN F. H OCKEY, JR.; BRIAN D.
G RIFFIN , J ONATHAN K RISCH , Office of General Counsel,
United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washing-
ton, DC.
______________________

-- 2 of 3 --

ROSE v. O ’ROURKE 3
Before PROST, Chief Judge, SCHALL and M OORE,
Circuit Judges.
PROST, Chief Judge.
The four individual appellants in this consolidated
appeal are veterans who have appealed the Department
of Veterans Affairs’ (“VA”) denial of their claims for ser-
vice-connected disability benefits. Based on delays that
have occurred in each of their cases, Appellants petitioned
for writs of mandamus, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) for relief. The
Veterans Court denied the petitions.
For the reasons stated in our decision in Martin v.
O’Rourke, No. 17-1747, we remand the appeals of Mr.
Rose and Ms. Punt so that their mandamus petitions may
be considered under the TRAC standard.
Regretfully, the parties have informed us that Mr.
Miller passed away during the course of this appeal. ECF
No. 77-1 at 2. As such, his appeal in this case is moot.
With respect to Mr. Daniels, the VA granted his claim for
benefits in December 2017. ECF No. 77-1 at 2. To the
extent Mr. Daniels intends to file a Notice of Disagree-
ment with that recent decision, he remains free to, in the
future, file a mandamus petition based on delay, should
the need arise. His currently pending appeal, however, is
moot.
Accordingly, we vacate and remand the appeals of Mr.
Rose and Ms. Punt for reconsideration under the TRAC
standard, and we dismiss the appeals of Mr. Miller and
Mr. Daniels as moot.
DISMISSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART,
AND REMANDED
COSTS
Costs to Appellants.

-- 3 of 3 --