Beaudette v. McDonough

Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 1 Filed: 02/27/2024

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

JEREMY BEAUDETTE, MAYA BEAUDETTE,
Claimants-Appellees

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellant
______________________

2022-1264
______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20-4961, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
Jr, Judge Joseph L. Toth, Judge Michael P. Allen.
______________________

Decided: February 27, 2024
______________________

IGOR VICTOR TIMOFEYEV, Paul Hastings LLP, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for claimants-appellees. Also represented
by RENEE A. BURBANK, BARTON FRANK STICHMAN, I, Na-
tional Veterans Legal Services Program, Arlington, VA;
MICHAEL J. FISHER, Miller Barondess, LLP, Los Angeles,
CA.

SOSUN BAE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Divi-
sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, argued for respondent-appellant. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 2 Filed: 02/27/2024

2 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

MCCARTHY; JANE ROTHSTEIN, BRYAN THOMPSON, Office of
General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.

MORGAN MACISAAC-BYKOWSKI, Veterans Law Insti-
tute, Stetson University College of Law, Gulfport, FL, for
amicus curiae National Law School Veterans Clinic Con-
sortium.

ALEC UMBERTO GHEZZI, Veterans’ Voice of America, Sil-
ver Spring, MD, for amicus curiae Vietnam Veterans of
America.
______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and STOLL, Circuit
Judges.
MOORE, Chief Judge.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) appeals
from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) granting a petition for a
writ of mandamus permitting the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals (Board) to hear appeals of adverse decisions rendered
under the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Fam-
ily Caregivers (Caregiver Program). For the following rea-
sons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. History of the Caregiver Program
In 2010, Congress established the Caregiver Program
to provide assistance to caregivers of seriously injured com-
bat veterans. Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health
Services Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-163, Title I, 124 Stat.
1130, 1132–40 (2010) (codified principally at 38 U.S.C.
§ 1720G) (Caregiver Act). The Caregiver Program provides
family caregivers benefits such as medical care, training,
support, counseling, mental health services, and a monthly
Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 3 Filed: 02/27/2024

BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH 3

stipend. 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(3)(A). To qualify, the vet-
eran must require personal care services because of “an in-
ability to perform one or more activities of daily living” or
a need for supervision, protection, or extensive instruction
due to the nature of the injuries. 38 U.S.C.
§ 1720G(a)(2)(C). An eligible veteran and family caregiver
seeking to participate in this program must jointly submit
an application to the Secretary. 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(4).
After initial approval, the veteran’s and family caregiver’s
eligibility are generally reassessed on an annual basis. 38
C.F.R. § 71.30.
In 2015, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
promulgated a final rule implementing the Caregiver Act.
Caregivers Program, 80 Fed. Reg. 1357 (Jan. 9, 2015). The
VA explained that all decisions under the Caregiver Act are
medical determinations that are not subject to the jurisdic-
tion of the Board. Id. at 1366. The VA noted the statute at
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1), titled “Construction,” states: “A
decision by the Secretary under this section affecting the
furnishing of assistance or support shall be considered a
medical determination.” Id. The VA explained “medical
determinations are not subject to the jurisdiction of the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals under 38 U.S.C. 7104, or pur-
suant to our implementing regulation.” Id. The VA rea-
soned that a longstanding regulation restricted the Board’s
review of medical determinations. See 38 C.F.R.
§ 20.101(b) (1992) (“Medical determinations, such as deter-
minations of the need for and appropriateness of specific
types of medical care and treatment for an individual, are
not adjudicative matters and are beyond the Board’s juris-
diction.”). Under the VA’s interpretation, the Caregiver
Act deemed all decisions medical determinations, and thus
such decisions “may not be adjudicated in the standard
manner as claims associated with veterans’ benefits.”
Caregivers Program, 80 Fed. Reg. at 1366.
Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 4 Filed: 02/27/2024

4 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

B. Procedural History
Jeremy Beaudette served in the Marine Corps from
2002 to 2012, including five combat tours in Iraq and Af-
ghanistan. Mr. Beaudette suffered multiple concussions,
resulting in traumatic brain injury and rendering him le-
gally blind. He was medically discharged, and the VA
rated him 100% disabled.
Mr. Beaudette and his wife Maya Beaudette (collec-
tively, the Beaudettes) applied for Caregiver Program ben-
efits in March 2013. The VA found them eligible based on
Mr. Beaudette’s inability to perform activities of daily liv-
ing and his substantial need for supervision and protection.
The Beaudettes remained in the Caregiver Program for
over four years and the VA consistently found them eligible
during its annual reassessments. In October 2017, the VA
initiated its regular reassessment of Mr. Beaudette. Due
to Mr. Beaudette’s ongoing recovery from major surgeries,
the Beaudettes requested a delay in the reassessment until
he could physically participate. The VA denied the request
and proceeded to reassess his status based solely on his
medical records.
In February 2018, the VA notified the Beaudettes they
were no longer eligible for Caregiver Program benefits.
The Beaudettes appealed the VA’s decision through the VA
Clinical Appeals process. See Caregiver Program, 80 Fed.
Reg. at 1366; see also VHA Directive 1041 (Oct. 24, 2016)
(J.A. 23–33). They first appealed to the VA Southern Ne-
vada Healthcare System (SNHS), the first-level reviewer,
which affirmed the VA’s decision. The Beaudettes ap-
pealed the SNHS decision to the second-level reviewer, the
Director of the Sierra Pacific Veterans Integrated Service
Network (VISN), which affirmed. The decision was consid-
ered final and could not be appealed.
The Beaudettes sought to appeal the final adverse de-
cision by filing a Notice of Disagreement with the Board in
August 2019. The Board issued no decision in response,
Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 5 Filed: 02/27/2024

BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH 5

nor did the Board dismiss the Notice of Disagreement for
lack of jurisdiction. Nearly a year later in July 2020, the
Beaudettes filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the
Veterans Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The petition
sought an order to permit Board review of adverse Care-
giver Program decisions and sought to certify a class of sim-
ilarly situated veterans and caregivers.
In April 2021, a majority of a three-judge panel granted
the Beaudettes’ petition and certified the request for a
class. Beaudette v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 95, 99
(2021). 1 The majority held Congress mandated Board re-
view of all Caregiver Program decisions. Id. at 105 (citing
38 U.S.C. § 7104(a)). The majority disagreed with the Sec-
retary’s position that the phrase “medical determination”
in § 1720G(c)(1) is a direct reference to a longstanding VA
rule, 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(b), excluding medical determina-
tions from Board review. Id. at 101 (citing 38 U.S.C.
§§ 511(a), 7252(a)), 103. Under the canons of statutory con-
struction, the majority concluded the Secretary did not
meet his burden to overcome the strong presumption favor-
ing judicial review of administrative action. Id. at 102–03.
The majority declined to provide a definitive interpretation
of § 1720G(c)(1). Id. at 105.

1 The Veterans Court ordered the Secretary to notify
claimants of their right to appeal adverse Caregiver Pro-
gram determinations to the Board. Beaudette, 34 Vet. App.
at 99. The Secretary did not request a stay of the order.
J.A. 1368–73; Appellee’s Response Br. at 15. The VA is-
sued over 400,000 notices of potential appeal rights to all
veterans and caregivers who ever received a Caregiver Pro-
gram decision. See Joint Letter in Response to Court’s Or-
der, Dkt. No. 75 at 2. As of December 11, 2023, the Board
had issued over 1,000 decisions on appeals of Caregiver
Program decisions. Id. at 3.
Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 6 Filed: 02/27/2024

6 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

Judge Falvey dissented because he believed the term
“medical determination” in § 1720G(c)(1) refers to the
longstanding VA rule, which was in existence before Con-
gress passed the Caregiver Act. Id. at 109 (Falvey, J., dis-
senting). He concluded the Secretary’s interpretation of
§ 1720G precluding Board review “is the only interpreta-
tion that gives effect to all of the statute’s provisions and
presumes that Congress understands the implications of
its words.” Id.
The Secretary appeals. 2 We have jurisdiction under 38
U.S.C. § 7292(a), (c).
DISCUSSION
I
In reviewing Veterans Court decisions, we “shall decide
all relevant questions of law, including interpreting consti-
tutional and statutory provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1).
We have “jurisdiction to review the [Veterans Court’s] de-
cision whether to grant a mandamus petition that raises a
non-frivolous legal question,” and to determine “whether
the petitioner has satisfied the legal standard for issuing
the writ.” Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed.
Cir. 2013). We review the Veterans Court’s legal interpre-
tations de novo. Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 1312, 1316
(Fed. Cir. 2017).
The All Writs Act authorizes “all courts established by
Act of Congress [to] issue all writs necessary or appropriate
in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the
usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651. To obtain
a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must show: (1) a “clear
and indisputable” right to the relief; (2) no adequate

2 The Secretary does not appeal the Veterans Court’s
class certification decision. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 16
n.7.
Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 7 Filed: 02/27/2024

BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH 7

alternative means to obtain the relief requested; and (3)
the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Wolfe v.
McDonough, 28 F.4th 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81
(2004)). The Secretary challenges the issuance of the writ.
II
We consider whether the Beaudettes have a “clear and
indisputable” right to Board review under the correct inter-
pretation of 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1). The statute states: “A
decision by the Secretary under this section affecting the
furnishing of assistance or support shall be considered a
medical determination.” 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1). The
Beaudettes’ right depends on whether the term “medical
determination” precludes Board (and judicial) review of all
Caregiver Program decisions. For the reasons set forth be-
low, we hold § 1720G(c)(1) only bars judicial review of
Caregiver Program decisions on the furnishing of assis-
tance or support.
There is a “strong presumption” favoring judicial re-
view of agency actions. Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C., 575
U.S. 480, 486 (2015) (quoting Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Fam.
Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986)). This rebuttable pre-
sumption is overcome if the “statute’s language or struc-
ture demonstrates that Congress wanted an agency to
police its own conduct.” Id. The party seeking to rebut the
presumption, here the Secretary, “bears a ‘heavy burden’ of
showing that the statute’s ‘language or structure’ fore-
closes judicial review.” Salinas v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 592
U.S. 188, 197 (2021) (quoting Mach Mining, 575 U.S. at
486). The Secretary has not met its burden to show all
Caregiver Program decisions are exempt from judicial re-
view.
Historically, there was no judicial review of VA benefits
decisions. See, e.g., Act of March 20, 1933, ch. 3 § 5, 48 Stat.
9 (1933) (“All decisions rendered by the Administrator of
Veterans’ Affairs . . . shall be final and conclusive on all
Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 8 Filed: 02/27/2024

8 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

questions of law and fact, and no other official or court of
the United States shall have jurisdiction to review by man-
damus or otherwise any such decision.”); 38 U.S.C. § 211(a)
(1958) (“[T]he decisions of the Administrator on any ques-
tion of law or fact concerning a claim for benefits or pay-
ments . . . shall be final and conclusive and no other official
or any court of the United States shall have power or juris-
diction to review any such decision.”). This exclusion re-
mained in place for decades.
In 1988, Congress, for the first time, established a
pathway for judicial review for certain benefits decisions
when it passed the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act of 1988
(VJRA). Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-
687, 102 Stat. 4105 (1988). The VJRA accomplished this
by amending § 211(a) to create exceptions to the general
prohibition to judicial review. See 38 U.S.C. § 211(a)
(1988); 38 U.S.C. § 511 (2012); Bates v. Nicholson, 398 F.3d
1355, 1362–64 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (explaining the history of
§ 511, including its predecessor § 211(a)). Specifically, all
“matters covered by chapter 72 of this title” were now sub-
ject to judicial review. 38 U.S.C. § 211(a)(2)(D) (1988) (ex-
empting certain matters from the general prohibition of
judicial review); see VJRA § 101. The VJRA also estab-
lished that the newly created Veterans Court has jurisdic-
tion over all Board decisions that are eligible for judicial
review. VJRA § 301 (creating 38 U.S.C. § 4052, renum-
bered to current § 7252, to establish jurisdiction). Under
the VJRA, the Board continued to have jurisdiction over
“[a]ll questions in a matter which under section 511(a) of
this title is subject to decision by the Secretary.” 38 U.S.C.
§ 7104(a).
In view of this history, Congress knew how to limit ju-
dicial review, including the jurisdiction of the Board, when
it passed the Caregiver Act in 2010. In fact, in a related
context, Congress expressly prohibited judicial review of all
decisions under the Veterans Community Care Program.
38 U.S.C. § 1703(f). There, Congress stated that “review of
Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 9 Filed: 02/27/2024

BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH 9

any decision under subsection (d) or (e) shall be subject to
the Department’s clinical appeals process, and such deci-
sions may not be appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals.” Id. (emphases added). When Congress intends to
prohibit judicial review, it clearly does so. See, e.g., 38
U.S.C. §§ 511(a), 7252(b) (“The Court may not review the
schedule of ratings or disabilities . . . or any action of the
Secretary in adopting or revising that schedule.”), 7263(d)
(“An order of the Court under this subsection is final and
may not be reviewed in any other court.”).
Congress did not express an intent to prohibit judicial
review of all decisions in the plain language of
§ 1720G(c)(1). 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1) (“A decision by the
Secretary under this section affecting the furnishing of as-
sistance or support shall be considered a medical determi-
nation.”); see, e.g., Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337,
340–41 (1997) (explaining the “plainness or ambiguity of
statutory language is determined by reference to the lan-
guage itself”). Indeed, the statute does not directly address
judicial review at all.
Though the plain language does not prohibit judicial
review, the Secretary argues Congress intended for all
Caregiver Program decisions to be exempt from Board re-
view. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 21–22, 36–37. The Sec-
retary argues “medical determination” is a reference to the
VA’s regulation precluding Board review of medical deter-
minations, which demonstrates Congress’ intent to exclude
them from Board review. Id. at 21–22 (citing 38 C.F.R.
§ 20.104(b) (1992)). We do not agree.
The Secretary’s argument is based on VA regulations
issued in 1983, prior to the VJRA, delineating the appellate
jurisdiction of the Board. Appeals Regulations, 48 Fed.
Reg. 6961, 6970 (Feb. 17, 1983) (codified at 38 C.F.R. pt.
19). The VA established that “[m]edical determinations,
such as determinations of the need for and appropriateness
of specific types of medical care and treatment for an
Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 10 Filed: 02/27/2024

10 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

individual, are not adjudicative matters and are beyond the
Board’s jurisdiction.” 38 C.F.R § 19.3(b) (1983). The VA
has continued to implement regulations, not challenged by
either party, that establish the types of matters within the
Board’s jurisdiction. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(b) (1992); 38
C.F.R. § 20.104(a) (2019). When the Caregiver Act was en-
acted, the Board’s appellate jurisdiction was defined:
(b) Appellate jurisdiction of determinations of the
Veterans Health Administration. The Board’s ap-
pellate jurisdiction extends to questions of eligibil-
ity for hospitalization, outpatient treatment, and
nursing home and domiciliary care; for devices
such as prostheses, canes, wheelchairs, back
braces, orthopedic shoes, and similar appliances;
and for other benefits administered by the Veter-
ans Health Administration. Medical determina-
tions, such as determinations of the need for and
appropriateness of specific types of medical care
and treatment for an individual, are not adjudica-
tive matters and are beyond the Board’s jurisdic-
tion. Typical examples of these issues are whether
a particular drug should be prescribed, whether a
specific type of physiotherapy should be ordered,
and similar judgmental treatment decisions with
which an attending physician may be faced.
38 C.F.R. § 20.101(b) (1992) (emphasis added). 3 The regu-
lation was redesignated in 2019 to section 20.104(b) and

3 Because the statute references a term of art in the
VA regulation, the VA is bound by the language in the reg-
ulation at the time the Caregiver Act passed. See George
v. McDonough, 596 U.S. 740, 746–47 (2022) (“Where Con-
gress employs a term of art obviously transplanted from
another legal source, it brings the old soil with it.” (internal
quotations omitted)); Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535,
Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 11 Filed: 02/27/2024

BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH 11

retained nearly the same language. See VA Claims and
Appeals Modernization, 84 Fed. Reg. 138, 177 (2019).
We presume Congress legislates with knowledge of ex-
isting statutes and regulations. Goodyear Atomic Corp. v.
Miller, 486 U.S. 174, 184–85 (1988) (“We generally pre-
sume that Congress is knowledgeable about existing law
pertinent to the legislation it enacts.”); see Traynor, 485
U.S. at 545–46. The Secretary argues Congress’ awareness
of VA’s longstanding regulation points to their intention to
prohibit judicial review. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 28–30.
But the Beaudettes do not argue Congress was unaware of
the regulation. Rather, the Beaudettes argue that with
awareness of the regulation, Congress limited its applica-
tion. Oral Arg. at 39:00–41:42, https://oralargu-
ments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22-1264_120620
23.mp3. We agree with both parties that the reference to
“medical determination” implicates the VA regulation re-
garding the Board’s jurisdiction.
To the extent the Secretary is suggesting that by refer-
encing “medical determination[s],” Congress intended no
judicial review of all Caregiver Program decisions, we do
not agree. Congress chose to limit the regulation’s applica-
bility to only decisions “affecting the furnishing of assis-
tance or support.” 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1); see Oral Arg. at
39:00–41:42. We understand this language to except from
Board review only decisions relating to the need for or ap-
propriateness of specific types of medical care and treat-
ment, which are properly considered medical
determinations. The Caregiver Act necessarily requires
decisions other than medical determinations, such as
whether veterans and caregivers are eligible to receive

545–46 (1988) (explaining that when Congress uses a term
of art when enacting a statute, it intends the same term
receive the same meaning for purposes of that statute).
Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 12 Filed: 02/27/2024

12 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7). Ju-
dicial review over those decisions is not precluded.
The Secretary’s argument is also inconsistent with the
regulation itself. The VA’s regulation broadly defines the
types of decisions that fall within the scope of the Board’s
review. For example, the first sentence of 38 C.F.R.
§ 20.101(b) states the Board has jurisdiction over eligibility
decisions of various benefits, such as outpatient treatment,
domiciliary care, and “other benefits administered by the
Veterans Health Administration.” 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(b)
(1992). 4 Some Caregiver Program decisions are at least
within the scope of “other benefits” and would fall under
the Board’s jurisdiction. See Appellant’s Opening Br. at 14
n.6.
The VA regulation excludes from Board review a nar-
row type of medical determination that is essential to VA’s
authority to prescribe specific types of medical care or
treatment. 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(b) (1992) (describing medi-
cal determinations as “determinations of the need for and
appropriateness of specific types of medical care and treat-
ment for an individual”). The regulation provides exam-
ples of medical determinations, such as a type of drug that
should be prescribed, type of physiotherapy that should be
ordered, or any other similar “judgmental treatment deci-
sions.” Id. The language of 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1) is

4 At the panel’s request, the parties submitted sup-
plemental briefing on the meaning of “domiciliary care”
within section 20.101(b). Supplemental Brief for Appel-
lant, Dkt. No. 77; Supplemental Brief for Appellees, Dkt.
No. 76. The parties appear to agree the term historically
means providing housing to a veteran rather than provid-
ing in-home care. Appellant’s Supp. Br. at 2–3; Appellees’
Supp. Br. at 3. Because section 20.101(b) covers “other ben-
efits,” we need not address the current meaning of “domi-
ciliary care.”
Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 13 Filed: 02/27/2024

BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH 13

consistent with the VA’s regulation. Section 1720G(c)(1)
does not state all Caregiver Program decisions are medical
determinations, only decisions about the type of “assis-
tance or support.” 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1). An eligibility
decision is not a judgmental treatment decision and thus
not a medical determination.
Moreover, the Board has the authority to determine
the types of Caregiver Program decisions that fall within
its jurisdiction. 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c) (2019) (“The Board
shall decide all questions pertaining to its jurisdictional au-
thority to review a particular case.”). To comply with 38
U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1), the Board must view all decisions
about the “furnishing of assistance or support” as medical
determinations and outside of its jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C.
§ 1720G(c)(1). An example of such a decision is whether a
specific type of mental health service is appropriate, or
whether the type of respite care provided for primary fam-
ily caregivers is medically and age-appropriate. 38 U.S.C.
§ 1720G(a)(3)(A)(ii)(II), (a)(3)(A)(ii)(III), (a)(3)(B). Other
decisions not related to the furnishing of assistance and
support are within the Board’s jurisdiction. For example,
decisions about the veteran’s or caregiver’s eligibility, such
as whether the caregiver is an appropriate family member,
are within the Board’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., 38 U.S.C.
§ 1720G(d)(3).
Here, the Beaudettes were deemed ineligible partially
because Mr. Beaudette was not available for an in-person
evaluation. J.A. 48–49. This is a procedural issue related
to Caregiver Program eligibility and is not a medical deter-
mination. The Board has the authority to review the
Beaudettes’ decision based on the interpretation of the
statute and the VA regulation.
We conclude the Beaudettes and other similarly situ-
ated veterans and caregivers have an indisputable right to
judicial review of Caregiver Program decisions that do not
affect the furnishing of support or assistance. The Board
Case: 22-1264 Document: 81 Page: 14 Filed: 02/27/2024

14 BEAUDETTE v. MCDONOUGH

has the authority under 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c) to determine
the types of appeals within its jurisdiction in light of the
guidance above.
III
We next consider whether the Beaudettes had no ade-
quate alternative means to obtain the relief requested.
Wolfe, 28 F.4th at 1354. The Secretary argues the
Beaudettes could have filed a direct appeal to this Court
pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 502. Appellant’s Opening Br. at
46–48. A § 502 petition is a challenge to the VA’s regula-
tions or rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure
Act. 38 U.S.C. § 502 (providing judicial review of VA’s ac-
tion under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(1) or 553). But the
Beaudettes do not challenge the VA’s regulation or rule-
making for the Caregiver Program. Rather, the
Beaudettes seek judicial review of an adverse decision re-
garding their eligibility for the Caregiver Program. J.A.
3–4; see also Oral Arg. at 28:42–30:31 (Secretary agreeing
the Beaudettes are not challenging a regulation or rule).
While the Beaudettes’ arguments challenge the VA’s inter-
pretation of a statute, they are not challenging the VA’s
rulemaking. Thus, the Beaudettes had no adequate alter-
native means to obtain the relief requested and the Veter-
ans Court properly issued a writ of mandamus.
CONCLUSION
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given above,
we affirm the Veterans Court’s grant of the petition for a
writ of mandamus.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.