Full Opinion

Case: 26-1481 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2026 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MICHAEL REZBA, Claimant-Appellant v. DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1481 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 25-9987, Judge Joseph L. Toth. ______________________ Decided: November 9, 2026 ______________________ MICHAEL BRIAN REZBA, Maggie Valley, NC, pro se. MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre- sented by ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, RICHARD STEPHEN HUBER, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________ Case: 26-1481 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2026 2 REZBA v. COLLINS Before HUGHES, SCHALL, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Michael Rezba appeals an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. Rezba v. Collins, No. 25-9987, 2026 WL 194150 (Vet. App. Jan. 23, 2026). Because Mr. Rezba fails to present a non-frivolous legal question on appeal, we dismiss. I In October 2025, Mr. Rezba filed a claim for permanent left foot/ankle disability benefits. He asserted that his dis- ability was caused by negligent medical care and fraud at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient clinic in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico and at the VA medical center in San Juan. 1 The next month, Mr. Rezba petitioned the Veterans Court for a writ of mandamus. He alleged that after he filed his claim for benefits, he sent documents to the Secretary of the VA “proving the felony fraud” at the Mayaguez and San Juan facilities. Appx. 12–13. 2 He also allegedly asked the Secretary to transfer his claim to a different VA re- gional office. Yet despite his request, the San Juan regional office began processing his claim. Mr. Rezba accordingly sought various forms of relief from the Veterans Court. He 1 Mr. Rezba brought his claim under 38 U.S.C. § 1151, which generally entitles a veteran to receive benefits for disabilities caused by VA’s “carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault” in furnishing medical care to the veteran. 2 Appx. refers to the Appendix attached to Respond- ent’s brief. ECF No. 11. Case: 26-1481 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2026 REZBA v. COLLINS 3 asked the Veterans Court to transfer his claim to a “neu- tral” VA regional office. Appx. 13. And he requested that the Veterans Court grant “interim” benefits pending VA’s final resolution of his claim. Appx. 13. In January 2026, the Veterans Court denied Mr. Rezba’s mandamus petition. The Veterans Court found that he failed to meet the requirements for mandamus be- cause he had adequate alternative means to obtain relief. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (citation omitted) (explaining that for any court to grant a writ of mandamus, the petitioner “must have no other adequate means to attain” the desired relief). That was because when Mr. Rezba filed his petition, VA had not yet denied his claim for benefits. If VA did so, he could ap- peal that denial to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. 3 On February 20, 2026, the Veterans Court entered judgment. Mr. Rezba timely appeals. II Our jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court is limited. We must “decide all relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). But absent a constitu- tional issue, we cannot “review (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.” Id. § 7292(d)(2). And we cannot review a Veterans Court decision whether to grant a mandamus petition asserting a statutory claim unless a “non-frivolous legal question” is properly pre- sented. Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). 3 A few days after the Veterans Court issued its order, the San Juan regional office denied Mr. Rezba’s benefits claim. Case: 26-1481 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 11/09/2026 4 REZBA v. COLLINS On appeal, Mr. Rezba faults the Veterans Court for not addressing the “bad faith actions” of the VA San Juan re- gional office. Appellant Br. 2. This argument fails to pre- sent a non-frivolous legal question. In denying Mr. Rezba’s petition, the Veterans Court applied longstanding prece- dent and found that Mr. Rezba could not “sidestep” VA’s appellate process by seeking mandamus. Rezba, 2026 WL 194150, at *1. And on the merits, the Veterans Court found that Mr. Rezba presented insufficient facts for obtaining such extraordinary relief. Mr. Rezba identifies no legal er- ror in these findings; he merely attacks the Veterans Court’s application of the mandamus requirements to the facts of his case. But this attack fails to present a non-friv- olous legal question, and we thus cannot review the Veter- ans Court’s decision. III We have considered Mr. Rezba’s remaining arguments and find that none raises an issue within our limited juris- diction. For these reasons, we dismiss Mr. Rezba’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.