INRE: HOLLAND , No. 13-158 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-158 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 11/22/2013 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ IN RE LEE HOLLAND, JR., Petitioner. __________________________ 2013-158 __________________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 09CV-1481, Chief Judge Bruce E. Kasold. __________________________ ON PETITION __________________________ Before NEWMAN, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Lee Holland, Jr. ( Holland ) seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Department of Veterans Affairs (the Department ) to, among other things, award him a total disability rating. This litigation began when Holland filed claims with the Department seeking a higher disability rating for his service-connected rheumatoid arthritis ( RA ) of multiple joints or a total disability rating based on individual unemployability ( TDIU ). Case: 13-158 IN RE HOLLAND Document: 3 Page: 2 Filed: 11/22/2013 2 After the Board of Veterans Appeals ( Board ) denied his claims, Holland appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ( Veterans Court ). Before that court, Holland argued, in relevant part, that the Board should have recognized a number of diseases caused by his RA medication, including gastroesophigal reflux disease, diverticulitis, and eye problems. On January 11, 2011, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board s decision. In doing so, the court noted that while the record does not reflect that these [claims] were reasonably raised before the Board or otherwise reasonably raised by Mr. Holland, that the Secretary has indicated that he has referred Mr. Holland s brief to the RO for processing. The Veterans Court entered judgment on February 3, 2011. The court received Holland s notice of appeal on July 14, 2011, 161 days after the date of judgment. Because the appeal was untimely, we dismissed the appeal on January 13, 2012. See Holland v. Shinseki, 463 F. App x 919 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Holland filed a motion for reconsideration that was denied on June 7, 2012. He now files this petition. A party who seeks a writ bears the burden of proving that he has no other means of attaining the relief desired, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Holland does not satisfy this test. Holland could have challenged the Veterans Court s decision, but failed to timely appeal from that ruling. In any event, because Holland can still obtain meaningful relief on the issues raised in his petition through the Department s claim processing procedures and the ordinary channels of appeal, mandamus would be inappropriate. Case: 13-158 Document: 3 3 Page: 3 Filed: 11/22/2013 IN RE HOLLAND Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. FOR THE COURT /s/ Daniel E. O Toole Daniel E. O Toole Clerk of Court s26
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
