Monk v. Shulkin
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
855 F.3d 1312 (2017)

- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
In 2012, Conley F. Monk, Jr. (plaintiff) filed a claim for service-connected disability with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (defendant) for post-traumatic stress disorder, diabetes, hypertension, and strokes. The VA denied Monk’s claim on the grounds that Monk’s discharge had been other than honorable. Monk filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) and applied to the Board of Corrections of Naval Records (BCNR), requesting an upgrade to Monk’s discharge status. The VA notified Monk that it could not process Monk’s appeal until it received records from the BCNR. In 2015, Monk petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) for a writ of mandamus ordering the VA to promptly adjudicate Monk’s claim as well as the claims of other similarly situated veterans. Monk asked the Veterans Court to certify a class for a class-action suit of veterans at any stage of the disability-claim process who had filed an NOD after having a disability claim denied, had then not received a decision within 12 months, and who could demonstrate financial or medical hardship pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2)(B)–(C). The Veterans Court rejected Monk’s request on the ground that the court lacked the authority to certify a class for a class-action suit. Monk appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reyna, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.