As we’ve been reporting, three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in December attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases, Hamill v. Collins, is a veterans case. In it, Hamill appeals a dismissal by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims of his mandamus petition. He urged that court to order the Department of Veterans Affairs to issue an appealable decision readjudicating the character of his discharge, and to certify a class of veterans who received other than honorable discharges and then applied for benefits but received decisions that adjudicated only healthcare eligibility, not including readjudication of the character of their discharges. The lower court dismissed his petition as moot because Hamill received a determination from VA that he had not submitted new and material evidence related to the character of his discharge. This is our argument preview.
In his opening brief, Hamill argued the Federal Circuit “should reverse the Veterans Court’s decision” that Hamill’s mandamus petition “was mooted by his 2021 service connection decision.” He contended the Veterans Court relied on the “implicit denial doctrine,” but that that doctrine conflicts with “statutory notice provisions,” the Appeals Modernization Act’s “structure and purpose and principles and due process,” and “Congressional intent.” Furthermore, Hamill argued, the Veterans Court “improperly extended” the doctrine to a decision “that cannot, as a matter of law, form an implicit denial of a request to reopen” a character of discharge determination. Finally, Hamill asserted, “the 2021 service connection decision did not constitute an implicit denial” and, thus, “the picking off exception to mootness applies.”
In its response brief, the government argued the Veterans Court “correctly dismissed” Hamill’s mandamus petition because “no case or controversy” existed when Hamill filed his petition and, “thus, he lacked standing.” The government further contended the Federal Circuit “does not possess jurisdiction to entertain” the challenges to the “Veteran Court’s factual findings regarding the scope of the May 2021 decision.” As a result, the government argued, “the appeal should be dismissed-in-part.” As to “the only legal argument presented,” the government sugggested, it has “no merit” because the implicit denial doctrine and the relevant section of the statute have “long coexisted.” The government specifically rejected Hamill’s contention “that his subsequent request for class certification keeps the case alive,” because “he has not shown that he had standing to pursue the class claims at the time he filed for class certification.” Finally, the government emphasized, “a writ of mandamus is extraordinary relief” and “must be dismissed” where, as here, there exists “alternative avenues of appeal.”
In his reply brief, Hamill argued he had standing “when VA failed to provide him notice of a character of discharge determination decision.” Hamill further contended the changes made to the Appeals Modernization Act “supersede the common law implicit denial doctrine” and require “that VA provide explicit and detailed notice of its decision” to provide a “fair opportunity” to challenge VA’s decision. Finally, Hamill maintained, the “petition is not moot” because “VA picked off Mr. Hamill’s petition” with “its February 2023 denial to reopen” its determination.
Two amicus briefs were filed in this case.
The National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium filed an amicus brief in support of Hamill and in favor of reversal. The amicus argued “heightened notice requirements” are a “centerpiece of Congress’s efforts to improve efficiency and accuracy in the Department of Veterans Affairs pro-claimant adjudication structure.” The Consortium also contended “the specific notice requirements” of the relevant statute “call into question the continued viability of the implicit denial doctrine.”
The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States also filed an amicus brief in support of Hamill and in favor of reversal. VFW argued VA’s process “continues to issue decisions which provide no statement about whether it is reopening or denying on the merits” a character of discharge determination. VFW argued that, “[b]y depriving the veteran of any information regarding the basis” for its determination, “VA blatantly ignores” the Appeals Modernization Act.
Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on Friday, December 5 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 402.