Opinions
on

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, two of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals and one is an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals, Rule 36 judgments, and erratum.

Kananowicz v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

John Kananowicz petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board decision dismissing his whistleblower retaliation claim against the Department of Labor for lack of jurisdiction. Kananowicz v. Dep’t of Lab., No. PH-1221-22-0056-W-1, 2022 WL 595807 (Feb. 24, 2022) (Board Decision). Because we find that Mr. Kananowicz has not nonfrivously alleged that he made a protected disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A), we affirm.

Brown v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Lewis Brown served in the U.S. Army in the 1950s and 60s. In 2011, he filed a supplemental claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs for disability benefits for a back condition stemming from his time in the Army. In 2019, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals granted Mr. Brown a September 13, 2011 effective date for a service-connection award for left and right lower extremity radiculopathy and for a rating of “total disability based on individual unemployability” or “TDIU” (a benefit for certain eligible disabled veterans who are unable to work due to a serviceconnected disability). Mr. Brown appealed from the Board’s decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that he is entitled to an effective date that is earlier than September 13, 2011. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remanded the matter back to the Board on grounds that the Board’s analysis lacked sufficient detail and thoroughness.

Mr. Brown appeals to this court arguing that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims committed legal error in remanding to the Board. He recognizes that we generally lack jurisdiction to review remand orders because they are non-final. But he argues that his appeal falls within an exception to that general rule. We disagree and dismiss Mr. Brown’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Dismissals

Rule 36 Judgments

Erratum