Patrick Frank Bryan v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PATRICK FRANK BRYAN,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1861
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 24-323, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith.
______________________
Decided: October 24, 2025
______________________
JARED L. L EVINSON , The Veterans Law Office of Jared
Levinson, Baltimore, MD, argued for claimant-appellant.
CATHERINE M. Y ANG , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by ERIC P. BRUSKIN , PATRICIA M. M CCARTHY,
Y AAKOV R OTH ; M ATTHEW ALBANESE , BRIAN D. G RIFFIN ,
Case: 24-1861 Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 10/24/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

BRYAN v. COLLINS 2
Office of General Counsel, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, PROST and T ARANTO , Circuit
Judges.
PROST, Circuit Judge.
Patrick F. Bryan appeals the denial of his petition for
a writ of mandamus by the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims (“Veterans Court”). For the reasons below, we af-
firm.
BACKGROUND
The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are sum-
marized in part in our decision Bryan v. McDonald, 615
F. App’x 681 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We provide facts relevant to
the issues here below.
In May 2016, after our decision issued, the Regional
Office (“RO”) determined that “[s]ervice connection has not
previously been established with a 100 percent evaluation
under . . . [Diagnostic Code (“DC”)] 9914 for loss of the max-
illa.” S.A. 76.1 One month later, the RO sua sponte recon-
sidered its 2015 rating decision granting Mr. Bryan service
connection for loss of teeth under DC 9913. S.A. 83–87. It
found clear and unmistakable error for granting service
connection and therefore proposed to sever service connec-
tion for loss of teeth under DC 9913. S.A. 84. From the
time the RO issued these dental-related decisions to the
time of this appeal, Mr. Bryan filed several notices of disa-
greement, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) is-
sued many opinions remanding the dental claims back to
the RO.
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed by
the government.
Case: 24-1861 Document: 64 Page: 2 Filed: 10/24/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

BRYAN v. COLLINS 3
Relevant to this appeal, on March 6, 2023, in response
to a remand from the Board, the RO (1) determined that
service connection has not previously been established
with a 100 percent evaluation under DC 9914 for the loss
of the maxilla; (2) denied Mr. Bryan entitlement to an ini-
tial disability evaluation in excess of ten percent for loss of
teeth for other than periodontal disease or other routine
dental maladies under DC 9913; and (3) found there was
no clear and unmistakable error in the January 1979 rat-
ing as to Mr. Bryan’s dental-related claims. S.A. 278–79.
Mr. Bryan filed a notice of disagreement on July 27, 2023.
S.A. 289. The Board docketed the appeal on August 10,
2023. S.A. 293. That appeal is still pending. Oral Arg. at
2:46–3:56, 18:00–19:54.2
About five months after the Board docketed his appeal,
Mr. Bryan petitioned for a writ of mandamus in the Veter-
ans Court. The court denied his petition because Mr.
Bryan did “not argue or seek to demonstrate that he lacks
adequate alternative means to attain the result he seeks.”
Bryan v. McDonough, No. 24-0323, 2024 WL 445563, at *1
(Vet. App. Feb. 6, 2024). The court also dismissed his peti-
tion to the extent he sought to compel a particular outcome.
Id. at *2. Mr. Bryan filed a motion for panel review, and a
panel held the single-judge order denying-in-part and dis-
missing-in-part Mr. Bryan’s petition for a writ of manda-
mus remains the decision of the Veterans Court. S.A. 6.
Mr. Bryan timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un-
der 38 U.S.C. § 7292.
D ISCUSSION
This court has limited jurisdiction to review Veterans
Court decisions. We “may not review (A) a challenge to a
factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or
2 No. 24-1861, https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-
arguments/24-1861_10072025.mp3.
Case: 24-1861 Document: 64 Page: 3 Filed: 10/24/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

BRYAN v. COLLINS 4
regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.”
38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
There are three conditions that must be satisfied before
a court may grant the extraordinary writ of mandamus:
(1) the party’s right to the writ must be “clear and indis-
putable”; (2) the party seeking the writ must have “no other
adequate means” to obtain the desired relief; and (3) “the
issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be sat-
isfied that the writ is appropriate under the circum-
stances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367,
380–81 (2004) (cleaned up). “We may not review the fac-
tual merits of the veteran’s claim, but we may determine
whether the petitioner has satisfied the legal standard for
issuing the writ.” Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158
(Fed. Cir. 2013). The issuance of a writ is “in large part a
matter of discretion with the court to which the petition is
addressed.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal.,
426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976).
Mr. Bryan did not establish entitlement to a writ of
mandamus as a matter of law because he has failed to show
that he has no other adequate means to obtain the relief he
seeks. In fact, he admits that the claims at issue in this
appeal—his dental-disability claims—are “at the [Board]
awaiting review.” Appellant’s Br. 8; see also Oral Arg. at
2:46–3:56, 18:00–19:54. “[T]he party seeking issuance of
the writ must have no other adequate means to attain the
relief he desires—a condition designed to ensure that the
writ will not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals
process.” Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380–81 (cleaned up). Be-
cause Mr. Bryan has an adequate alternative means to at-
tain the relief he desires (i.e., appealing his RO decision(s)),
the Veterans Court properly denied the writ. See, e.g., Har-
grove v. Shinseki, 629 F.3d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“In
light of the fact that [the veteran] had an adequate alter-
native means to attain the relief he requested, the Veter-
ans Court properly denied the writ of mandamus.”).
Case: 24-1861 Document: 64 Page: 4 Filed: 10/24/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

BRYAN v. COLLINS 5
Mr. Bryan also alleges unreasonable delay by the De-
partment of Veterans Affairs. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br.
10–18. We have adopted the D.C. Circuit’s TRAC standard
to evaluate unreasonable-delay mandamus petitions. Mar-
tin v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Un-
der the TRAC standard, “each case should be analyzed
based on its unique circumstances.” Id. at 1345 (cleaned
up). “[W]e see no reason to articulate a hard and fast rule
with respect to the point in time at which a delay becomes
unreasonable. Because, among other factors, reasonable-
ness depends on the particular agency action that is de-
layed, a two-year delay may be unreasonable in one case,
and it may not be in another.” Id. at 1346 (discussing the
first TRAC factor). Even when considering the TRAC fac-
tors, we “acknowledged that ‘all three [Cheney] require-
ments must [still] be demonstrated for mandamus to
issue.’” Mote v. Wilkie, 976 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(first alteration in original) (quoting Martin, 891 F.3d at
1343 n.5).
We need not consider any issues regarding the TRAC
standard here because Mr. Bryan failed to demonstrate
how or why the six TRAC factors weigh in his favor before
the Veterans Court. As the Veterans Court noted, “[t]o the
extent” that Mr. Bryan “alleges undue delay,” he “pro-
vide[d] no legal or factual analysis to demonstrate that the
TRAC factors weigh in his favor,” and he has “offered in-
sufficient argument to carry his burden of demonstrating
that mandamus is warranted.” Bryan, 2024 WL 445563,
at *2. Under these circumstances, we see no reason to dis-
turb the Veterans Court’s determination.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Bryan’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1861 Document: 64 Page: 5 Filed: 10/24/2025

-- 5 of 5 --