Washington Windsor v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
WASHINGTON WINDSOR,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2026-1057
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 25-4564, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: July 8, 2026
______________________
WASHINGTON YKJ W INDSOR, Saginaw, TX, pro se.
STEPHEN J. SMITH , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
WILLIAM J AMES G RIMALDI, P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE; S COTT J. SHOREMAN, Office of General Counsel,
United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washing-
ton, DC.
______________________
Case: 26-1057 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

WINDSOR v. COLLINS 2
Before L OURIE, P ROST , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Washington Windsor appeals from a decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Vet-
erans Court”) dismissing his petition for a writ of manda-
mus as moot and denying his motion to strike portions of
the Secretary’s response to his petition. Windsor v. Collins,
2025 WL 2437432, at *2 (Vet. App. Aug. 25, 2025) (“Deci-
sion”). For the following reasons, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Windsor is a veteran with a combined disability evalu-
ation of 100 percent, which means he is eligible for outpa-
tient dental treatment under 38 C.F.R. § 17.161(h). As
relevant here, Windsor received immediate complete upper
dentures and immediate lower partial dentures on Decem-
ber 15, 2022. S.A. 27.1
Windsor became dissatisfied with his denture treat-
ments, and on April 2, 2025 petitioned the Veterans Court
seeking a writ of mandamus that would compel the Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) to immediately implement
certain other dental care and refer him to an oral surgeon.
S.A. 42. The Veterans Court dismissed the petition, ex-
plaining that the issuance of Windsor’s requested writ
would not lead to a decision from the Board of Veterans’
Appeals (“the Board”) over which the Veterans Court would
have jurisdiction. S.A. 42–44.
On June 3, 2025, Windsor filed another petition at the
Veterans Court seeking a writ of mandamus that would
compel VA to provide him with full upper-arch dental im-
plants. See S.A. 36–37. The Secretary responded, arguing
that the Veterans Court did not have jurisdiction over the
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed by
the government at ECF No. 13-2.
Case: 26-1057 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

WINDSOR v. COLLINS 3
petition, and Windsor subsequently moved to strike por-
tions of the Secretary’s response. See Decision, 2025 WL
2437432, at *1. In his motion to strike, Windsor generally
argued that the Secretary had been untruthful and mis-
leading, but also asserted that he “underwent successful
full dental implant surgery in July 2025” with a private
provider. See S.A. 9, 12. Windsor then requested “full cov-
erage and reimbursement for the July 2025 implant sur-
gery.” S.A. 19 (footnote omitted).
The Veterans Court dismissed Windsor’s petition, ex-
plaining that his admittedly successful dental implant sur-
gery mooted his petition requesting the Veterans Court to
order VA to provide him with dental implant surgery. De-
cision, 2025 WL 2437432, at *2. The Veterans Court deter-
mined that Windsor’s new requests raised in his motion to
strike, including his request for reimbursement, exceeded
the scope of his original petition, and the Veterans Court
therefore did not address the merits of Windsor’s request
for reimbursement. Id. The Veterans Court also denied
Windsor’s motion to strike. Id.
Windsor timely appealed.
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited. We may “review and decide any challenge
to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpre-
tation thereof” and “interpret constitutional and statutory
provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a deci-
sion.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). But we generally “may not re-
view (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a
challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a
particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Furthermore, we
have jurisdiction to review a Veterans Court decision “on
whether to grant a mandamus petition that raises a non-
frivolous legal question.” Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d
1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In doing so, “we may deter-
mine whether the petitioner has satisfied the legal stand-
ard for issuing the writ,” but “[w]e may not review the
Case: 26-1057 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

WINDSOR v. COLLINS 4
factual merits of [a] veteran’s claim” “or the application of
veterans’ benefits law to the particular facts of a veteran’s
case.” Id.
As for the Veterans Court’s dismissal of Windsor’s pe-
tition for a writ of mandamus, we determine that Windsor
points to no non-frivolous legal question which we have ju-
risdiction to review.
Windsor argues that VA erred in its purported “pro-
longed inaction” of failing to rule in a timely manner on his
request for dental implants. See Open. Br. 17–23. To
Windsor, VA’s inaction runs afoul of the framework of
38 U.S.C. § 1712 and 38 C.F.R. § 17.161(h) that mandate
“any needed dental care” for veterans with a disability
evaluation of 100 percent. But Windsor does not present a
non-frivolous legal argument explaining how that means
the Veterans Court erred in dismissing his petition as
moot. Indeed, Windsor specifically sought in his petition
for the Veterans Court to compel VA to “authoriz[e] and fa-
cilitate[e] any medically necessary dental treatment re-
quired” under Windsor’s entitlement. S.A. 40. The dental
treatment was completed, as evidenced by Windsor’s own
assertion to the Veterans Court. S.A. 12. To the extent
that Windsor seeks reimbursement for that treatment, as
the Veterans Court pointed out, his petition at issue here
did not seek such reimbursement and such a request there-
fore exceeds the scope of his petition. Windsor therefore
presents no non-frivolous legal argument that we can re-
view.
Although Windsor alleges that the Veterans Court er-
roneously interpreted 38 U.S.C. § 1712 and 38 C.F.R.
§ 17.161(h) in dismissing his petition, Open. Br. 8, we con-
clude otherwise. The Veterans Court did not interpret ei-
ther provision, and indeed never evaluated or questioned
Windsor’s status or right to treatments under either provi-
sion. The Veterans Court merely determined that, because
Case: 26-1057 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 07/08/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

WINDSOR v. COLLINS 5
Windsor had obtained the treatment sought to be com-
pelled in his petition, the petition was moot. Decision,
2025 WL 2437432, at *2.
Windsor also asserts in his briefs before us that the
medical treatment he seeks remains incomplete. Open. Br.
15; Reply Br. 13, 21. That is contrary to Windsor’s asser-
tions before the Veterans Court, see S.A. 12, and, regard-
less, is a factual dispute over which we have no jurisdiction,
see 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
Finally, Windsor argues that the Veterans Court erred
in denying his unopposed motion to strike. Open. Br. 23–
25. Windsor again points to no interpretation of a statute
or regulation by the Veterans Court that would afford us
jurisdiction. To the extent Windsor alleges that the Secre-
tary relied upon a legally insufficient declaration in its re-
sponse brief before the Veterans Court, Open. Br. 28–29,
Windsor did not make that argument before the Veterans
Court in his motion to strike, see S.A. 6–21. We therefore
cannot consider that argument. See Scott v. McDonald,
789 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that
we lack jurisdiction to hear arguments not made before the
Veterans Court, and first offered on appeal to this court).
Thus, because Windsor does not raise a non-frivolous
legal question based on the Veterans Court’s decision to
dismiss his petition for a writ of mandamus, and points to
no interpretation of a statute or regulation in its denial of
his motion to strike, we lack jurisdiction over his appeal.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Windsor’s remaining arguments
and determine that none raise an issue over which we can
assert jurisdiction. We accordingly dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 26-1057 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 07/08/2026

-- 5 of 5 --