In Re Stephanie Michael

Congress “balances two important interests” affecting provision of VA benefits —“the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009). Specific text, legislative history, and purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act, 38 U.S.C. 511(a) and Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1988 are legislative actions in furtherance of this expressed congressional intent. Even so, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas grants of qualified immunity, forum non conveniens, and res judicata conclude based on Government’s litigation position that because her claims involve “VA benefit matters”— veteran’s suits did not arise from “circumstances in which Congress has provided by statute that the remedy provided by the Federal Tort Claims Act is made the exclusive remedy.” See 28 C.F.R. 15.4. The questions presented are “not merely semantic but...of considerable practical importance for judges and litigants. See Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011):

1. Whether agency actions affecting the provision of VA benefits under applicable law may be reviewed by any other official or by any court of competent jurisdiction by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise in exceptional circumstances provisions for prior exclusive opportunity for review under Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1988 is inadequate.

2. Whether mandamus action by this court is appropriate.