## Facts

- R. Edward Bates, a VA-accredited attorney, represented claimants seeking veterans’ benefits under statutory provisions governing accreditation and representation.
- After a disciplinary proceeding, the VA General Counsel (acting for the Secretary) terminated Bates’s accreditation under 38 U.S.C. § 5904(b) and 38 C.F.R. § 14.633.
- The termination was based on findings that Bates engaged in unlawful practice, accepted unlawful compensation, solicited illegal fees, and deceived a claimant.
- Bates filed a Notice of Disagreement challenging the termination and requested a Statement of the Case (SOC) to pursue review before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.
- The Secretary refused to issue an SOC, asserting that accreditation-termination decisions were outside the Board’s jurisdiction because they were not decisions under a law “that affects the provision of benefits.”

## Issues

1. Whether termination of attorney accreditation under 38 U.S.C. § 5904(b) is a Secretary “decision … under a law that affects the provision of benefits” reviewable by the Board under 38 U.S.C. §§ 511(a) and 7104(a).
2. Whether the Veterans Court erred by denying mandamus to compel issuance of an SOC when the Secretary refused to issue one based on an asserted lack of Board jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit held that a § 5904(b) accreditation-termination decision is made under a law that affects the provision of veterans’ benefits and is therefore within the Board’s jurisdiction under §§ 511(a) and 7104(a).
- The court ruled that the Veterans Court erred in denying mandamus on jurisdictional grounds.
- The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary to provide the requested SOC.

## Legal Principles

- The phrase “under a law that affects the provision of benefits” in 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) is broader than decisions directly awarding or denying benefits and includes laws regulating representation in the benefits process.
- Attorney accreditation and discipline under 38 U.S.C. § 5904 have a sufficient connection to the benefits system because they govern who may assist claimants in obtaining benefits.
- Actions taken by the VA General Counsel on the Secretary’s behalf under § 5904(b) constitute “decision[s] by the Secretary” for purposes of §§ 511(a) and 7104(a).
- Mandamus may issue when the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to relief and no adequate alternative remedy; once Board jurisdiction exists, the Secretary must issue an SOC following a valid Notice of Disagreement.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that termination of VA attorney accreditation under 38 U.S.C. § 5904(b) is reviewable within the VA appellate structure because it arises under a law affecting the provision of benefits, and it ordered mandamus to require the Secretary to issue an SOC so the challenge could proceed to the Board.


Bates v. Nicholson, 398 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005)