Rytlewski v. Wilkie

• Decision Date: 28 March 2019
• Docket Number: 19-1910
• Parties: Robert A. Rytlewski, Petitioner, v. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent.
• Court: United States Court of Appeals For Veterans Claims

Robert A. Rytlewski, Petitioner, v. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent.

No. 19-1910

United States Court of Appeals For Veterans Claims

March 28, 2019

Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a), this action may not be cited as precedent.

Robert A. Rytlewski VA General Counsel.

Before TOTH, Judge.

ORDER

JOSEPH L. TOTH JUDGE.

Veteran Robert A. Rytlewski filed a pro se petition for extraordinary relief seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the Secretary to award a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) and pay any past-due benefits arising from that award. The veteran apparently filed this petition in response to a February 2019 regional office (RO) decision denying TDIU.

One of the basic rules governing mandamus relief is that it cannot be used as an alternative to the regular appellate process. See Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2013). And Mr. Rytlewski has a perfectly adequate appellate option if he disputes the RO's denial: file a Notice of Disagreement within one year of the February 2019 decision and complete any additional procedures necessary to obtain review by the Board. See Sims v. Shinseki, 578 F.3d 1332, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because the traditional appeals process provides Mr. Rytlewski a forum to challenge the RO's decision, the "drastic" remedy of mandamus must be denied. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976).

The petitioner also requests that the Court issue "warrant(s) of arrest for offenses against the United States" for VA personnel based on assertions that the RO violated Federal regulations when issuing and mailing the February 2019 rating decision. Even if these allegations had merit, the relief requested is beyond the power of this Court to grant. See generally Burris v. Wilkie, 888 F.3d 1352, 1356-62 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (discussing the limitations on this Court's authority). Moreover, such allegations do not alter Mr. Rytlewski's ability to challenge the rating decision via the normal appellate process.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the petition for extraordinary relief is DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that the petitioner's March 28, 2019, motion for expedited relief is denied as moot.