## Facts

- William E. Freeman, a U.S. Army veteran, was awarded service connection for paranoid schizophrenia with a 100% disability rating and special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance, effective December 22, 2008.
- VA found Freeman incompetent to manage disbursement of VA funds based on a VA examination and a supporting statement from his sister.
- VA appointed a paid fiduciary, Shelia Horace, to control Freeman’s VA benefits; Freeman preferred his sister, Debora C. Allen, as fiduciary.
- Freeman filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) challenging both the rating decision and the fiduciary appointment.
- The regional office refused to accept an NOD as to fiduciary selection, asserting that fiduciary choice was not appealable.
- Freeman petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for a writ of mandamus to compel VA to accept the NOD regarding the fiduciary appointment.

## Issues

1. Whether VA’s determination of whom to appoint as a fiduciary is a “decision” subject to the VA administrative appeals process and potential judicial review, or instead an unreviewable matter committed to the Secretary’s sole discretion.
2. Whether the requirements for mandamus were satisfied to compel VA to accept and process Freeman’s NOD challenging fiduciary selection.

## Decision

- The court granted the petition for extraordinary relief and issued a writ of mandamus.
- The court rejected the Secretary’s categorical position that fiduciary-selection determinations are beyond review and outside any court’s jurisdiction.
- The court ordered VA to accept Freeman’s NOD regarding the fiduciary appointment so the dispute could proceed through the ordinary VA adjudication and appellate channels.
- The court did not decide who should serve as fiduciary; it required only that VA provide access to the statutory review process.

## Legal Principles

- A VA determination that materially affects the control and enjoyment of a veteran’s monetary benefits, including fiduciary selection, can constitute a reviewable “decision” within the veterans benefits appellate framework.
- VA may not insulate a class of benefit-related determinations from the NOD/Board review scheme by refusing to accept an NOD on the ground that the matter is “unappealable.”
- Mandamus is appropriate where (1) the petitioner shows a clear and indisputable right to relief, (2) there is no adequate alternative means to obtain relief because VA’s action blocks access to administrative review, and (3) issuance of the writ is appropriate to restore the statutory review process.
- Ordering VA to accept an NOD restores procedural rights without resolving the underlying merits of the disputed agency determination.

## Conclusion

The court required VA to accept and process a veteran’s NOD challenging the appointment of a paid fiduciary, holding that fiduciary-selection determinations affecting benefit control are not categorically exempt from the veterans benefits appellate process and may be subjected to administrative review and, if necessary, judicial review.


Freeman v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 404 (2011)