930 F.2d 37
In re Robert L. HARRIS, Petitioner.
Robert L. HARRIS, Appellant,
v.
Edward J. DERWINSKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.
Misc. No. 290.
No. 90-7015.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Nov. 15, 1990.
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
Before ARCHER, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
ON MOTION
ARCHER, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
Robert L. Harris has submitted a petition for writ of mandamus (misc. no. 290) and filed a notice of appeal (appeal no. 90-7015) from an order of the Court of Veterans Appeals.
Apparently, this matter stems from Harris' claims for compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) based on a heart disorder and on an anxiety neurosis. As gleaned from the submitted papers, on December 6, 1989, the Board of Veterans Appeals denied Harris' claim for compensation based on the anxiety neurosis, but referred his heart disorder claim to a regional DVA office for further consideration. Harris appealed the Board decision to the Court of Veterans Appeals where he attempted to argue the merits of both claims. In a July 3, 1990 order, the Court of Veterans Appeals limited its review to the anxiety neurosis claim.
Appeal no. 90-7015 is Harris' appeal from the July 3 interlocutory order. Harris' mandamus petition relates to the same matter and apparently seeks a transfer of the Court of Veterans Appeals' case to this court and review by this court of the heart disorder claim.
Harris' efforts to have this court review his case are premature. The July 3 order of the Court of Veterans Appeals is not appealable because it is not final. See 38 U.S.C. Sec. 4092. Moreover, Harris has not shown, nor do we find, that the "exceptional circumstances" that would justify issuance of a writ of mandamus exist. See Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamma Corp., 108 S.Ct. 1133, 1143 (1988). Harris may seek review by this court on appeal after a final judgment of the Court of Veterans Appeals.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Harris' petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
(2) Harris' appeal no. 90-7015 is dismissed as premature.