Tameria R. Robinson v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TAMERIA R. ROBINSON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1932
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-2827, Judge Grant Jaquith.
______________________
Decided: December 13, 2024
______________________
TAMERIA R. ROBINSON, Oak Leaf, TX, pro se.
MARIANA TERESA ACEVEDO, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also
represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN,
PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before REYNA, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1932 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 12/13/2024

-- 1 of 6 --

ROBINSON v. MCDONOUGH 2
PER CURIAM
Tameria Robinson appeals the U.S. Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) order denying her
petition under the All Writs Act for a writ of mandamus.
Robinson v. McDonough, No. 23-2827, 2023 WL 5621850
(Vet. App. Aug. 31, 2023) (Order). Ms. Robinson sought a
writ of mandamus to reopen her previously denied claims,
arguing that the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson
Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics
Act of 2022 (PACT Act) automatically reopens denied
claims that are subsequently established as presumptively
service connected. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Ms. Robinson, a Gulf War veteran, actively served in
the U.S. Army from November 1987 to May 1988 and from
November 1990 to June 1991. Supplemental Appendix
(S.A.) 27.1 After Ms. Robinson left the service, a VA
examiner diagnosed her with allergic rhinitis but
concluded that it was “less likely than not” that her
condition was service connected. Id.; see also S.A. 39–40.
The Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) accordingly denied
Ms. Robinson’s corresponding claim for disability benefits.
S.A. 18. The Veterans Court affirmed. Robinson v. Wilkie,
No. 18-2481, 2019 WL 2061974, at *5 (Vet. App. May 10,
2019).
On January 20, 2023, the Department of Veterans
Affairs (Agency) sent Ms. Robinson a letter indicating that
she may be eligible to receive benefits under the PACT Act.
S.A. 65–68. Specifically, the letter stated that a “Covered
Veteran” under the PACT Act includes Gulf War veterans
who served on or after August 2, 1990, and chronic rhinitis
1 Supplemental Appendix of S.A. refers to the
supplemental appendix submitted with Appellee’s
Informal Brief.
Case: 24-1932 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 12/13/2024

-- 2 of 6 --

ROBINSON v. MCDONOUGH 3
is presumptively a service connected condition. S.A. 66.
The letter further stated that claimants whose prior claims
for disability compensation were denied should complete
VA Form 20-0995. S.A. 67. Ms. Robinson subsequently
filed a different form, VA Form 21-4138, indicating that she
wished to open a new claim for allergic rhinitis under the
PACT Act and for the Agency to review her denied claim.
S.A. 77. The Agency, in response, explained that
Ms. Robinson should file her request using the proper form
and directed her to a chart, listing VA Form 20-0995 as the
proper form for individuals with new and relevant evidence
concerning their previously denied claim. S.A. 77–78.
Ms. Robinson subsequently called the Agency hotline
attempting to reopen her previously denied claim. See
S.A. 89. The Agency explained, on April 17, 2023, that it
could not automatically reopen decided claims. See id.
On May 10, 2023, Ms. Robinson petitioned the
Veterans Court for a writ of mandamus that would direct
the Secretary to award her benefits. Order at *1.
Specifically, she argued that she was entitled under the
PACT Act to reopen her previously denied claims. S.A. 84.
The Veterans Court reasoned that because the PACT Act
does not itself automatically reopen claims but instead
requires the filing of a supplemental claim, Ms. Robinson
failed to demonstrate her indisputable right to a writ of
mandamus. Order at *2. Ms. Robinson now appeals to this
court, contending that the Veterans Court relied on an
improper interpretation of the PACT Act.
II. DISCUSSION
A.
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited by statute. Guillory v. Shinseki, 603 F.3d
981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction over
“relevant questions of law, including interpreting
constitutional and statutory provisions.” 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(d)(1). But we lack jurisdiction over “challenge[s] to
Case: 24-1932 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 12/13/2024

-- 3 of 6 --

ROBINSON v. MCDONOUGH 4
a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular
case” except where constitutional issues are present.
38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). However, this limited jurisdiction
does not insulate the Veterans Court’s rulings on
mandamus petitions from judicial review. See Lamb v.
Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, “[w]e may not review the factual 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).
For a writ of mandamus to issue, three criteria must be
met: “(1) the petitioner must lack an adequate alternative
means to attain relief; (2) the petitioner must demonstrate
a clear and indisputable right to the writ; and (3) the court
must be convinced, given the circumstances, that the
issuance of the writ is warranted.” Hargrove v. Shinseki,
629 F.3d 1377, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Cheney v. U.S.
Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)). The
decision to grant the 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 the N. Dist. of Cal.,
426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). We must affirm the Veterans
Court’s decision unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
38 U.S.C. §7292(d)(1)(A).
B.
We first consider our jurisdiction. The Secretary
argues that we must dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the Veterans Court merely applied,
and did not interpret, the PACT Act. We disagree.
Ms. Robinson contends that the Veterans Court erred by
concluding that she lacked an indisputable right to the writ
because the PACT Act does not automatically reopen
veterans’ claims. Thus, her appeal turns on the meaning
and scope of a statutory provision.
Case: 24-1932 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 12/13/2024

-- 4 of 6 --

ROBINSON v. MCDONOUGH 5
C.
We conclude that Ms. Robinson has failed to show that
she has “a clear and indisputable right to the writ.” See
Hargrove, 629 F.3d at 1378. Ms. Robinson seeks a writ of
mandamus to direct the regional office to reopen her
previously denied claims. But the PACT Act places two
obligations on the Secretary relevant here, neither of which
requires the Secretary to automatically reopen previously
adjudicated claims. First, whenever a law establishes or
modifies a presumption of service connection, the PACT Act
requires the Secretary to identify claimants whose claims
were denied but might have been decided differently had
the presumption of service connection been applied.
38 U.S.C. § 1167(a). Second, the PACT Act requires the
Secretary “to inform [such claimants] that they may
submit a supplemental claim.” 38 U.S.C. § 1167(b). But a
duty to inform claimants that they may file a supplemental
claim does not imply an obligation to reopen a previously
denied claim in the absence of such a filing. Moreover,
since there would be little need to file a supplemental claim
if the Secretary was already obligated to reopen the
previously denied claims, Ms. Robinson’s interpretation of
the PACT Act is both unsupported by and inconsistent with
the statutory text. Because the PACT Act does not
establish Ms. Robinson’s right to the relief she seeks, the
Veterans Court did not err in concluding that Ms. Robinson
failed to show her indisputable right to a writ. See Order
at *2.
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Robinson’s remaining
arguments but do not find them persuasive. For the
foregoing reasons, we affirm. We note, however, that Ms.
Robinson may still pursue her claim under the PACT Act
by filing a supplemental claim using VA Form 20-0995. See
Order at *2 (urging Ms. Robinson “to file her supplemental
claim as quickly as possible so that she may receive any
benefits she is entitled to”).
Case: 24-1932 Document: 14 Page: 5 Filed: 12/13/2024

-- 5 of 6 --

ROBINSON v. MCDONOUGH 6
AFFIRMED.
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1932 Document: 14 Page: 6 Filed: 12/13/2024

-- 6 of 6 --