This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in an appeal from a decision the Merit Systems Protection Order. The court also released three non precedential opinions. One comes in an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the other two come in appeals from decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and and a link to the summary affirmance.
Olivia v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Precedential)
Steven Oliva petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) final order, which denied his petition for review and affirmed the administrative judge’s initial decision. Oliva v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. DA0752-16-0338-I-1, 2023 WL 4138713, at *1 (M.S.P.B. June 22, 2023) (“Final Order”); Oliva v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. DA-0752-16-0338-I-1, 2017 WL 3594506 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 18, 2017) (“Initial Decision”). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Robles v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Gabriel M. Robles appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) denying compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151; a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (“TDIU”), including extraschedular consideration; and special monthly compensation (“SMC”) based on the need for regular aid and attendance for a right wrist disability. See Robles v. Collins, No. 24-1231, 2025 WL 2429644 (Vet. App. Aug. 22, 2025) (“Veterans Court Decision”); see also S.A. 7–14 (“Board Decision”). Because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we dismiss.
Carroll-Harris v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Jennifer Carroll-Harris claims that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) fired her and took other personnel actions against her in retaliation for protected whistleblowing activity. She filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel and subsequently filed an individual-right-of-action (“IRA”) appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). An administrative judge issued an initial decision denying her appeal and the Board affirmed that decision in a final order. Because the Board correctly concluded that Carroll-Harris did not prove that the VA retaliated against her for protected whistleblowing activity, we affirm.
Thomas v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Dietrich A. Thomas petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) declining to set aside the settlement agreement between Ms. Thomas and the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). S.A. 1–8. For the reasons below, we affirm.