Khamani Lodge v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
KHAMANI LODGE,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1687
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 25-200, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith.
______________________
Decided: December 10, 2025
______________________
K HAMANI L ODGE, Waynesboro, GA, pro se.
ELINOR J OUNG K IM , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
ERIC P. BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA M. M CCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE;
T YRONE C OLLIER, BRIAN D. G RIFFIN, Office of General
Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
Washington, DC.
Case: 25-1687 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 12/10/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

LODGE v. COLLINS
______________________
Before L OURIE and STOLL , Circuit Judges,
and O ETKEN, District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM .
Khamani Lodge, proceeding pro se, appeals from the
final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Vet-
erans Claims denying his petition for extraordinary relief
in the form of a writ of mandamus. Because Mr. Lodge
raises no non-frivolous legal challenges to the Veterans
Court’s decision, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Lodge is a veteran of the Gulf War having served
in the United States Army from October 3, 1990 to
April 17, 1992. Among other claims, Mr. Lodge filed two
claims for veterans’ benefits in the form of service-con-
nected compensation for traumatic brain injury (TBI), both
of which were denied. SAppx 15–23.2 The Department of
Veterans Affairs Regional Office denied Mr. Lodge’s initial
claim on April 27, 2023, stating that it “did not find a link
between [Mr. Lodge’s] medical condition and military ser-
vice.” SAppx 21. The RO denied Mr. Lodge’s supplemental
claim on January 6, 2025, in which Mr. Lodge also sought
special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for
aid and attendance. SAppx 15–19. The RO’s decision
stated that there was “no evidence indicating a diagnosed
condition shown to be caused by or incurred during
[Mr. Lodge’s] active military service.” SAppx 18.
1 Honorable J. Paul Oetken, District Judge, United
States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, sitting by designation.
2 “SAppx” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed
by the Appellee with its Informal Brief. See ECF No. 13.
Case: 25-1687 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 12/10/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

LODGE v. COLLINS 3
Mr. Lodge filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the
Veterans Court on January 16, 2025. SAppx 8.
The Veterans Court denied Mr. Lodge’s petition on
January 31, 2025, concluding that Mr. Lodge could not use
mandamus to challenge the RO’s decision denying
Mr. Lodge benefits when he had an alternative remedy to
mandamus through the normal appellate process.
SAppx 2. On February 21, 2025, the Veterans Court de-
nied Mr. Lodge’s motion for single-judge reconsideration,
and that same day, Mr. Lodge filed a Notice of Disagree-
ment with the January 6, 2025 rating decision at the Board
of Veterans’ Appeals. SAppx 3–4; SAppx 13–14.
Mr. Lodge appeals the Veterans Court’s denial of his
petition for writ of mandamus.
D ISCUSSION
The scope of our review in an appeal from a Veterans
Court decision is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d
1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We may review a decision by
the Veterans Court concerning whether to grant a manda-
mus petition only when the veteran raises a non-frivolous
legal question, such as a constitutional issue or the inter-
pretation of a regulation or statute that was relied on by
the Veterans Court. See Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d
1154, 1157–58 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d
1378, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(a), (d).
As explained below, we conclude that Mr. Lodge has
failed to raise a non-frivolous legal challenge to the Veter-
ans Court’s denial of his writ of mandamus. We thus lack
jurisdiction to consider his arguments. See Wright v. Col-
lins, 157 F.4th 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2025); see also
Thomas v. Wilkie, 816 F. App’x 450, 453 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(non-precedential).
The Veterans Court considered the three conditions re-
quired to issue a writ of mandamus and determined that,
Case: 25-1687 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 12/10/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

LODGE v. COLLINS
at a minimum, Mr. Lodge failed to establish that he has no
other adequate means to attain the desired relief.
SAppx 1–2 (citing Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,
542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)). The Veterans Court
acknowledged that, while Mr. Lodge disagreed with the
RO’s January 6, 2025 rating decision, “a petition is not the
appropriate avenue to challenge that decision.” SAppx 2.
The Veterans Court further explained that “nothing in this
order precludes the petitioner from seeking relief from the
[VA]” and detailed how Mr. Lodge could pursue alternative
means to obtain the relief he seeks. Id. Indeed, following
this advice, Mr. Lodge filed a notice of appeal to the Board
and thus pursed this alternative means. See SAppx 13–14.
On appeal to this court, Mr. Lodge does not argue that
the Veterans Court misstated the legal standard for evalu-
ating whether to grant a writ of mandamus; nor does he
argue that the Veterans Court interpreted or elaborated on
the meaning of any statute or regulation. Instead,
Mr. Lodge focuses on the merits of his underlying claims,
primarily that he has not been paid “the proper amount of
disability payment.” Appellant’s Inf. Br. 1–2. Because
Mr. Lodge’s appeal does not raise a non-frivolous legal
question, we lack jurisdiction to review these challenges.
See Beasley, 709 F.3d at 1158; see also 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(d)(2).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Lodge’s remaining arguments
but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
dismiss Mr. Lodge’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1687 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 12/10/2025

-- 4 of 4 --