This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contracts case, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

Agile Defense, Inc v. United States (Precedential)

Agile Defense, Inc. (“Agile”) appeals the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting the government’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and concluding that the United States Defense Information Systems Agency (“DISA”) did not contravene the terms of the solicitation when it reviewed the supporting documentation for certain proposed cost-reimbursement (“CR”) labor rates. See Agile Def., Inc. v. United States, 143 Fed. Cl. 10 (2019) (“Federal Claims Decision”). We affirm.

Chatman v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Mr. Chatman appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the “Veterans Court”) in Chatman v. Wilkie, No. 18-6731, 2019 WL 4061968 (Vet. App. Aug. 29, 2019), that affirmed an October 25, 2018 decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals (the “Board”) (1) denying an effective date earlier than November 8, 2014 for a 20% rating for residuals of a medial meniscus tear, and (2) remanding a portion of the Board’s decision that denied an earlier effective date for a non-compensable rating for limitation of extension of the right knee as well as a 10% rating for limitation of flexion of the right knee. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Garza v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Maria E. Garza appeals from the final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denying the disability claim of her late husband, veteran Armando A. Garza. Specifically, Ms. Garza challenges the Board’s determinations denying (1) entitlement to a disability rating greater than 90% for accrued-benefits purposes, and (2) an effective date earlier than April 5, 2006, for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability. Garza v. Wilkie, No. 18-6396, 2019 WL 6315189, at *1 (Vet. App. Nov. 26, 2019). Because Ms. Garza fails to present a question within our jurisdiction, we dismiss.

Rule 36 Judgment