Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a vaccine case, affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential opinions, two in appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one from the Court of Federal Claims, and one from the Armed Service Board of Contract Appeals. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Stratton v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Precedential)
This appeal arises from the Chief Special Master’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs for Abigail Stratton’s vaccine injury compensation claim under the Vaccine Act, which was affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part by the Court of Federal Claims. Stratton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1515V, 2023 WL 2337224 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 3, 2023) (“Special Master Decision”); Stratton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1515 (Fed. Cl. May 31, 2023) (“Decision”). For the reasons below, we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Bradbury v. Department of Homeland Security (Nonprecedential)
David Bradbury petitions for review of a final order by the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that sustained his removal from the Department of Homeland Security (“Agency”). Bradbury v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. DA-0752-23-0012-I-1, 2024 MSPB LEXIS 4022 (M.S.P.B. July 12, 2024) (“Final Order”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Carey v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Timothy M. Carey served on active duty in the U.S. Army from December 1965 to December 1968, the service including a 16-month tour in Vietnam. In January 1971, he submitted a claim to what is now the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for disability benefits based on an allegedly service-connected “nervous condition.” Carey v. McDonough, No. 21-5558, 2023 WL 2534100, at *1 (Vet. App. Mar. 16, 2023) (Decision). A VA neuropsychiatrist diagnosed Mr. Carey with an “inadequate personality,” and in July 1971, VA denied him disability benefits because an “inadequate personality . . . is not a disability under the law.” Id. Mr. Carey did not press an appeal of that decision. Later, he was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and began receiving benefits, effective October 28, 1991.
In September 2017, Mr. Carey filed a request with the relevant VA regional office (RO), under 38 U.S.C. § 5109A, for revision of the July 1971 decision based on allegations of clear and unmistakable error (CUE). After the RO denied Mr. Carey’s request twice, he appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board). Before the Board issued its decision, Mr. Carey passed away, and his surviving spouse Yoko Carey was substituted as the claimant. In April 2021, the Board ruled that the 1971 decision implicitly denied Mr. Carey benefits for his nervous condition and rejected the allegations of CUE. In March 2023, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed the Board’s ruling. Id. We now affirm.
Hutchinson v. United States (Nonprecedential)
George Baldwin Hutchinson, Jr., appeals pro se from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) upholding a decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR”) denying various claims for compensation in connection with Mr. Hutchinson’s service in the Army. We affirm.
Lee v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Danny Lee appeals pro se a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying his application for disability retirement under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System. For the below reasons, we affirm.
Onyems v. Department of the Navy (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Chizoma Onyems appeals from a final decision of the Armed Service Board of Contract Appeals (“the Board”). Mr. Onyems is the sole owner of a limited liability company, CB Portable Toilet Rental and Service (“CB Portable”), which contracted with the government to provide services to five locations within Camp Lejeune. When the government terminated that contract for convenience just one month into the year-long performance period, CB Portable submitted a certified claim to the contracting officer and subsequently appealed the officer’s determination to the Board, where the company was represented by Mr. Onyems, who is not a licensed attorney. The Board ultimately granted over $16,000 in damages (plus interest) to CB Portable. Mr. Onyems now seeks to appeal this determination on behalf of himself personally, not on behalf of his company. For the following reasons, we dismiss Mr. Onyems’ appeal