# Johnnie R. Mangham v. Eric K. Shinseki

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · November 16, 2009 · 23 Vet. App. 284

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502589

## Case

- **Full name:** Johnnie R. MANGHAM, Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** November 16, 2009
- **Citations:** 23 Vet. App. 284; 2009 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 2007; 2009 WL 3806327
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kasold
- **Judges:** Kasold, Moorman, Lance
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502589

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a mental distress injury resulting from a shooting at a VA domiciliary “ ‘was coincidental to residing at a VA domiciliary and ... not caused by the actual provision of hospital care, medical or surgical treatment^] or examination’ ” (quoting Johnnie R. Mang-ham, …

## Opinion text

KASOLD, Judge,
concurring in part:
Although subtly different than expressed in the majority opinion, I believe the threshold question in this instance is whether Mr. Mangham was receiving VA treatment or care as defined by 38 U.S.C. § 1151 at the time he observed the shooting that he claims is the cause of his reported mental distress. I agree with the majority that he was not. Accordingly, Mr. Mangham cannot, and has not, established the relevance of the Root Cause Analysis, and his argument that he should be permitted to review the analysis under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 fails.
I also agree that because Mr. Mangham was not receiving section 1151 care at the time of the incident underlying his claim, we need not reach the issue of whether the shooting constituted “an event not reasonably foreseeable.” For this same reason, however, we need not reach the issue of causation, and I do not concur in the nonessential discussion thereof.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502589. Public record. Not legal advice.