## Facts

- A Navy veteran alleged exposure to ionizing radiation during Operation Crossroads (1946) and filed a disability claim in 1947 for residuals of radioactive exposure; the agency denied the claim for lack of supporting evidence.
- In 1979, after a diagnosis of chronic myelogenous leukemia, the veteran reopened the claim, asserting service connection based on radiation exposure; he also alleged additional radiation exposure in 1963–1964.
- The claim cycled for years between the regional office and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, including Board remands directing further evidentiary development (such as an independent radiation-exposure assessment).
- The regional office did not fully complete remand-directed development, contributing to prolonged administrative delay.
- After the veteran’s death, his widow continued the benefits pursuit and filed a petition seeking extraordinary relief to compel agency action.
- At the time of the petition, the reopened claim and related widow’s claim had remained unresolved for more than a decade without a final agency disposition.

## Issues

1. Whether the United States Court of Veterans Appeals had authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief directed to the Department of Veterans Affairs in connection with a benefits claim not yet culminating in a final Board decision.
2. If jurisdiction existed, whether the decade-long delay and failure to complete remand-ordered development warranted issuance of an extraordinary writ compelling agency action.

## Decision

- The court held it had jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to entertain the petition in aid of its potential appellate jurisdiction over Board decisions.
- The court concluded the undisputed circumstances presented the type of situation that could warrant extraordinary relief based on unreasonable delay.
- The court declined to issue a writ immediately because government counsel represented that the matter would be resolved soon.
- The court retained jurisdiction and denied immediate extraordinary relief without prejudice to later action.

## Legal Principles

- The All Writs Act permits a congressionally created court to issue writs “in aid of” its jurisdiction; the Act does not independently confer jurisdiction but supports jurisdiction granted elsewhere by statute.
- A court’s authority to issue extraordinary writs may extend to protecting prospective appellate jurisdiction where agency inaction or delay threatens to frustrate meaningful review.
- Statutory limits confining merits review to final agency decisions do not necessarily bar ancillary writ authority to prevent administrative delay from defeating eventual judicial review.
- Mandamus and related writs are extraordinary remedies; even when circumstances justify intervention, issuance remains discretionary and may be withheld based on credible assurances of imminent agency action, coupled with retained jurisdiction to ensure follow-through.

## Conclusion

The court recognized its All Writs Act power to consider extraordinary-relief petitions aimed at unreasonable agency delay that could impair future appellate review, but it withheld mandamus in reliance on the agency’s representations of prompt resolution while retaining jurisdiction to revisit the matter if delay persisted.


Erspamer v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 3 (1990)