Today, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions in two veterans cases and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the first veterans case, the court affirmed a dismissal. In the second veterans case, the court affirmed in part and dismissed in part a decision denying an earlier effective date for a service-connected condition. In the case appealed form the Merit Systems Protection Board, the court affirmed the dismissal of an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Batson v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
On appeal before this court, Mr. Batson argues that the Board and Veterans Court misinterpreted § 7105(d) as precluding Board jurisdiction over an argument that the RO [Regional Office] failed to address a claim. Batson Opening Br. at 10–17. We have jurisdiction to review Mr. Batson’s challenge to the Veterans Court’s interpretation of [38 U.S.C.] § 7105(d). See Bean v. McDonough, 66 F.4th 979, 987–88 (Fed. Cir. 2023)(exercising jurisdiction to review Veterans Court’s interpretation of § 7104 when “relevant facts [were] established by the unchallenged documentary record”); 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (c).
* * *
We need not decide the interpretive question, however, because we have not been shown that the answer to it would make a difference. All Mr. Batson seeks is a Board directive to the RO to adjudicate the assertedly still-pending August 1993 claim for service-connected compensation under §§ 1110 and 1114. But it has long been recognized by the Veterans Court that “the ‘appropriate procedure’ for a claimant who believes that his claim is unadjudicated is to pursue resolution of the claim by the regional office.” Cogburn v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 205, 215 n.5 (2010) (citing DiCarlo v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 52, 56–57 (2006)). At oral argument, government counsel agreed that this procedure is available and indeed is the proper means for Mr. Batson to ask the RO to adjudicate his assertedly stillpending August 1993 claim and that use of that procedure, compared to securing the Board order he seeks in this appeal, would not impair his entitlement to an effective date of August 1993 if otherwise warranted. Oral Arg. at 17:1118:10, 19:34–19:56, https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts. gov/default.aspx?fl=23-408_05082025.mp3. In reliance on the availability of that procedure, we therefore affirm the Veterans Court’s affirmance of the Board’s dismissal.
Bradley v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Anthony Bradley appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), which denied his request for an earlier effective date for a service connected condition. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Medwetz v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Charles Medwetz petitions pro se for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.