George Dunbar Prewitt, Jr. v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GEORGE DUNBAR PREWITT, JR.,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-2141
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 25-5615, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
Jr.
______________________
Decided: May 11, 2026
______________________
G EORGE D UNBAR P REWITT , J R., Greenville, MS, pro se.
D ANIEL H OFFMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by ERIC
P. BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE;
EVAN S COTT G RANT , Y. K EN L EE , Office of General Counsel,
United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washing-
ton, DC.
Case: 25-2141 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 05/11/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

PREWITT v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before D YK, L INN, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
George Dunbar Prewitt, Jr. appeals pro se a decision of
the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
Court”) denying a mandamus petition seeking to compel
the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) to issue a decision
in a pending case and for other relief. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Prewitt served honorably in the army from 1968 to
1970 and applied for benefits with the Department of Vet-
erans Affairs (“VA”). Between 1970 and 2015, the VA Re-
gional Office (“RO”) issued rating decisions that granted
disability ratings for some of Mr. Prewitt’s requests for
benefits but denied others. Mr. Prewitt appealed these de-
cisions to the Board to the extent his requests were denied.
Like many veterans’ appeals, Mr. Prewitt’s appeals have
since shuttled between the RO, the Board, the Veterans
Court, and our court.
In July 2020, the Veterans Court vacated and re-
manded portions of a Board decision related to a June 1970
rating decision based on clear and unmistakable error
(“CUE”). The 1970 rating decision assigned an initial rat-
ing of 30% to residuals from a service-connected gunshot
wound injury and denied service connection for hyperten-
sion. After the Board remanded issues related to the 1970
rating decision, among others, to the RO for additional de-
velopment, the RO submitted a July 2024 supplemental
statement of the case. Mr. Prewitt again appealed the case
to the Board.
One year later, on July 3, 2025, Mr. Prewitt filed a pe-
tition for extraordinary relief at the Veterans Court,
Case: 25-2141 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 05/11/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

PREWITT v. COLLINS 3
seeking an order compelling the Board to expeditiously ad-
judicate his appeal. Before the Veterans Court ruled on
this petition, on July 17, 2025, the Board decided
Mr. Prewitt’s appeal. In relevant part, the Board denied
Mr. Prewitt’s request to revise the June 1970 rating deci-
sion based on CUE.
Mr. Prewitt then filed an amended petition at the Vet-
erans Court on July 28, 2025, which requested relief on the
merits of his appeal related to his request to revise the 1970
rating decision. In both his original and amended manda-
mus petition, he also argued that the procedures for adju-
dication of veterans’ claims violate the Seventh
Amendment.
The Veterans Court denied Mr. Prewitt’s amended pe-
tition because Mr. Prewitt could appeal the Board’s
July 17, 2025, decision to the Veterans Court and, there-
fore, he had adequate alternative means of receiving relief.
With respect to Mr. Prewitt’s arguments regarding the con-
stitutionality of the veterans’ claims system, the Veterans
Court concluded that mandamus was not warranted be-
cause if the Veterans Court or the Board “is invalid, pre-
sumably the illegality that taints the appellate process
would extend to the writ option.” S.A. 3.1 Mr. Prewitt
timely appealed the Veterans Court’s decision to our court.
D ISCUSSION
“[O]ur jurisdiction is limited in appeals from the [Vet-
erans Court] . . . .” Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370,
1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “‘This court has jurisdiction to re-
view the [Veterans Court’s] decision whether to grant a
mandamus petition that raises a non-frivolous legal ques-
tion . . . .’” Wright v. Collins, 157 F.4th 1379, 1381
1 Citations to S.A. refer to the Supplemental Appen-
dix filed by the government at Dkt. No. 23.
Case: 25-2141 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 05/11/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

PREWITT v. COLLINS 4
(Fed. Cir. 2025) (alteration in original) (quoting Beasley
v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). When a
mandamus petition raises a nonfrivolous legal question, we
“determine whether the petitioner has satisfied the legal
standard for issuing the writ,” but do not “review the fac-
tual merits of the veteran’s claim[s].” Beasley, 709 F.3d
at 1158. We review denial of a writ of mandamus for abuse
of discretion. Hargrove v. Shinseki, 629 F.3d 1377, 1378
(Fed. Cir. 2011).
Mr. Prewitt argues that the veterans claims system, in-
cluding the Veterans Court, is unconstitutional, an issue
which he has also raised in a district court proceeding.2 See
Prewitt v. McDonough, No. 21-2243, 2025 WL 42744, at
*2–9 (D.D.C. Jan. 7, 2025). With respect to the constitu-
tionality of the veterans claims system, Mr. Prewitt has not
established that a writ of mandamus to the Veterans Court
is the proper mechanism to address this issue.3
2 On appeal, Mr. Prewitt raises additional argu-
ments regarding the constitutionality of the Veterans
Court that were not raised in his mandamus petition, in-
cluding whether the Veterans Court “is a valid institution,
and if its placement in the executive branch rather than
the judicial branch, is legal under Article I, Section 8,
Clause 9 of the U.S. Constitution.” Appellant’s Informal
Br. 2. These questions were not presented in Mr. Prewitt’s
mandamus petition, and we do not address them.
3 We note that the Supreme Court recently granted
certiorari in Johnson v. U.S. Congress, which presents the
question “[w]hether the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act
stripped district courts of the jurisdiction . . . to hear chal-
lenges to the constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting
veterans’ benefits.” Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 2,
Johnson v. U.S. Congress (No. 25-735) (Dec. 17, 2025).
Case: 25-2141 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 05/11/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

PREWITT v. COLLINS 5
As to the arguments related to alleged errors of the
Board’s decision on the merits, “[i]t is well established that
mandamus is unavailable when there is an adequate rem-
edy by appeal.” Wolfe v. McDonough, 28 F.4th 1348, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2022). Mr. Prewitt could challenge the merits of
the Board’s order through an appeal to the Veterans Court.
Accordingly, Mr. Prewitt did not satisfy the legal standard
for issuance of the writ because he has “adequate means to
attain the relief he desires.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for
D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (quoting Kerr v. U. S. Dist.
Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)).
We have considered Mr. Prewitt’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive.4
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
4 Mr. Prewitt also moves to supplement the record
or, in the alternative, to recall the mandate in Appeal
No. 20-2172, an appeal of a previous Veterans Court deci-
sion related in part to the same 1970 rating decision. There
is no basis for recalling the mandate or supplementing the
record. Mr. Prewitt’s motion is denied.
Case: 25-2141 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 05/11/2026

-- 5 of 5 --