This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. All four opinions come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Both orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissals.
James v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Larry James appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), dismissing in part his appeal denying entitlement to a higher disability rating for headaches beginning September 7, 2018, vacating in part the decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying entitlement to a compensable disability rating for headaches before September 7, 2018, and remanding for further proceedings. James v. McDonough, No. 23-0653, 2024 WL 1880107, at *8 (Vet. App. Apr. 30, 2024) (“Decision”). For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss.
Griffen v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Griffin, a veteran of the U.S. Army, appeals a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denial of a motion to revise a 1986 Board Decision denying service-connected disability compensation. Griffin v. McDonough, No. 24-0567, 2024 WL 5220353 (Vet. App. Dec. 26, 2024) (Decision). Because this court lacks jurisdiction, we must dismiss.
Dover v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Lydia C. Dover, the surviving spouse of veteran Jack E. Dover, appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. That decision affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ decision denying revision of a 1968 VA denial of service connection on the basis of clear and unmistakable error. For the reasons below, we affirm-in-part and dismiss-in-part.
Fritz v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
David S. Fritz appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying his motion to supplement the pleadings and granting-in-part, denying-in-part, and dismissing-in-part his petition for extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus. For the reasons below, we affirm-in-part and dismiss-in-part.