This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions in two veterans cases, a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released a nonprecedential order granting a joint motion to dismiss and two nonprecedential orders granting petitions to withdraw petitions. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.
Gillilan v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
John R. Gillilan appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denying Mr. Gillilan an effective date before March 20, 2016 for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) and denying Mr. Gillilan’s request that recoupment of a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) settlement under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 not include amounts Mr. Gillilan paid in attorneys’ fees and be recouped by withholding only a portion of his monthly benefits. On appeal, Mr. Gillilan argues that the Veterans Court erred in affirming the Board’s decision. For the reasons below, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Dumaine v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Francois G. Dumaine appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“Board”) denial of his request to reopen his disability benefits claim for type 2 diabetes mellitus. See Dumaine v. McDonough, No. 20-3414, 2021 WL 2669283 (Vet. App. June 30, 2021). For the reasons below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Aljindi v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Dr. Ahmad Aljindi appeals the final decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons below, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
VanHorn v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Jenifer VanHorn challenges the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons below, we affirm.
Hogland v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Order)
Upon consideration of the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal, which the court construes as a joint motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
IT IS ORDERED THAT
(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal is dismissed.
(2) As noted by the parties, costs are to be paid in accordance with the terms of their settlement agreement.
In re Broadcom Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)
Upon consideration of the parties’ joint request to withdraw this petition “with each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees,” Mot. at 4,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is withdrawn.
In re Broadcom Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)
Upon consideration of the parties’ joint request to withdraw this petition “with each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees,” Mot. at 4,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is withdrawn.