In re MacPhee
Docket: No. 696
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; April 24, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Patrick D. MacPhee and William B. Hendrix petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to vacate its orders denying their motions for complete copies of their claims files as they existed at the time of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision, without charge. Initially, both claimants received copies of their files for free during agency proceedings. Upon appeal, they requested complete copies again, but the Secretary of Veterans Affairs only provided updated versions of the files compiled after the original submission, arguing that he complied with relevant statutes and regulations. The circuit judge's review referenced 38 U.S.C. § 5702, which allows individuals to request copies of records and grants the Secretary the authority to establish fees, although duplication fees for VA benefit records are waived for beneficiaries. The applicable regulation (38 C.F.R. § 1.526(i)(2)) supports fee waivers for VA benefits records, while U.S. Vet.App. R. 11 outlines the obligation of the Secretary to provide records for appeal, including the right for parties to supplement the record if necessary. MacPhee asserts that the Secretary has a duty to provide a complete file during appeals, expressing concern that he must guess the contents of the original file based on what he has received, implying the possibility of discrepancies. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims allows MacPhee access to inspect and copy the claims file under Rule 11(c)(1), but MacPhee argues that this necessitates costly travel to Washington, D.C. The Secretary has offered to send the claims file to a regional office for ease of access. In considering the writ of mandamus, traditionally used to ensure lawful jurisdictional exercise, the court outlines that a party must demonstrate they have no other means to achieve their desired relief, and that their right to the writ is "clear and indisputable." MacPhee fails to meet these criteria. First, he has not proven a clear right to mandamus as the relevant statutory and regulatory language does not demand the relief sought. Second, he has other avenues for relief, such as raising issues on appeal after a final judgment. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.