## Facts

- Conley F. Monk, Jr., a Vietnam-era Marine Corps veteran, applied for VA disability benefits in 2012 for PTSD, diabetes, hypertension, and strokes.
- The VA denied benefits in 2013 based on Monk’s “other than honorable” discharge status.
- Monk filed a Notice of Disagreement and separately sought a discharge upgrade from the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR).
- In 2015, the VA stated it could not process Monk’s appeal until it received BCNR records, resulting in continued delay.
- Monk petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for a writ of mandamus addressing delay and sought class treatment for similarly situated veterans whose appeals were not decided within 12 months and who showed hardship.
- The Veterans Court denied class certification and a motion to join by another veteran, stating it lacked authority to certify classes or use aggregate adjudication methods; it ordered only a response to Monk’s individual mandamus petition.
- During the Federal Circuit appeal, the BCNR upgraded Monk’s discharge and the Secretary determined Monk was eligible for full disability benefits for PTSD and diabetes.

## Issues

1. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has authority to certify a class action in cases within its jurisdiction.
2. Whether the Veterans Court may employ aggregate resolution procedures (including in mandamus proceedings) to address common legal issues affecting multiple veterans.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the Veterans Court’s categorical ruling that it lacked authority to certify classes or use similar aggregate procedures.
- The Federal Circuit held the Veterans Court has authority to certify a class and to maintain similar aggregate resolution procedures in matters within its jurisdiction.
- The case was remanded for the Veterans Court to consider, on the merits, whether class certification or other aggregate relief was appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Class actions and related aggregate mechanisms are procedural devices; they do not create jurisdiction and may be used when a court already has jurisdiction over the underlying matter.
- The Veterans Court’s statutory framework (including its authority to decide legal questions, issue appropriate orders, and manage proceedings) permits use of class and similar aggregate procedures absent an express statutory bar.
- Under the All Writs Act, a court may structure mandamus procedures—including aggregate approaches—when necessary or appropriate in aid of its existing or potential jurisdiction, without enlarging jurisdiction.
- A court errs when it refuses, as a categorical matter, to consider class or aggregate procedures; the availability of such procedures must be assessed case-by-case under applicable standards.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that the Veterans Court may certify class actions and use comparable aggregate procedures, including in mandamus matters, and required the Veterans Court on remand to evaluate whether such relief was warranted rather than rejecting it as beyond its power.


Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2017)