Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07109/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07109-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rickey R. Curry
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RICKEY R. CURRY,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7109

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-3694, Judge William A. Moorman.

______________________ 

Decided: January 19, 2016

______________________ 

RICKEY R. CURRY, Brewton, AL, pro se. 

ROBERT NORWAY, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., SCOTT D.

AUSTIN; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, BRANDON A. JONAS, Office of 

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC. 

Case: 15-7109 Document: 22-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/19/2016
2 CURRY v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Rickey R. Curry appeals from the decision of the 

Court of Appeals for the Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Curry served on active duty in the U.S. Army 

from December 1976 to March 1987. He then served in 

the Army National Guard from May 1988 to May 2001, 

including a period of active duty during the Persian Gulf 

War. He received an anthrax vaccination in 1991 during 

his active Gulf War service. In 2006, Mr. Curry was 

diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer. Between 

2006 and 2014, Mr. Curry submitted a number of claims 

for service connection including for prostate cancer, 

tinnitus, frostbite, post-traumatic stress disorder 

(“PTSD”), chronic migraines, and chronic fatigue syndrome. The regional offices denied all of his claims except 

for his PTSD claim, which was awarded with a 30 percent 

disability rating in April 2012.

Mr. Curry appealed to the Board, which affirmed the 

30 percent disability rating but remanded his prostate

cancer and mental disorder claims with an order to request medical examinations. After several medical examinations, the regional office denied Mr. Curry’s claims for 

chronic depression including mood swings, fatigue syndrome, and prostate cancer, all claimed as due to an 

undiagnosed illness and anthrax vaccination. Mr. Curry 

appealed, and the Board affirmed the denials, but granted 

service connection for a nonspecific headache disability.

Mr. Curry appealed to the Veterans Court, arguing 

that the Veterans Affairs (“VA”) failed to obtain his mediCase: 15-7109 Document: 22-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/19/2016
CURRY v. MCDONALD 3

cal records, failed its duty to assist, and failed to consider 

the issue of total disability rating based upon individual 

unemployability (“TDIU”). The Veterans Court affirmed 

the Board’s determination that Mr. Curry was not entitled to service connection for (i) chronic depression including mood swings, (ii) chronic fatigue syndrome, and (iii) 

prostate cancer based on the theory of undiagnosed illness. 

However, as to Mr. Curry’s claim for prostate cancer due 

to anthrax vaccination, the Veterans Court vacated and 

remanded because it found the examination report in the 

record to be inadequate for rating purposes. The Veterans Court did not disturb the Board’s decision awarding 

Mr. Curry entitlement to service connection for headaches 

due to an undiagnosed illness. Mr. Curry appeals.

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. We have jurisdiction to 

review a decision of the Veterans Court “with respect to 

the validity of a decision of the Court on a rule of law or of 

any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof 

. . . that was relied on by the [Veterans Court] in making 

the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) (2012). Except where 

an appeal raises a constitutional issue, we lack jurisdiction to review a “challenge to a factual determination” or 

a “challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts 

of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2). We ordinarily 

review only final orders of the Veterans Court, and “[t]hus, 

we generally do not review the Veterans Court’s remand 

orders because they are not final decisions.” Ebel v. 

Shinseki, 673 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

When a veteran’s case involves multiple claims and 

the Veterans Court remands some of the claims but 

reaches a final judgment on others, we can review the 

claims that have been fully and finally adjudicated. 

Elkins v. Gober, 229 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We 

may review claims finally decided by the Veterans Court 

Case: 15-7109 Document: 22-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/19/2016
4 CURRY v. MCDONALD

that are not intertwined with the remanded claim. See 

Allen v. Principi, 237 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

Because Mr. Curry’s claims for chronic depression (including mood swings), fatigue syndrome, and prostate cancer 

related to an undiagnosed illness are not intertwined with 

his remanded claim, we are not barred from reviewing the 

Veterans Court’s decision on those claims on the grounds 

that it is not a final decision. Mr. Curry’s argument 

appears to be that the Board’s denial of his claims was 

based on the Board’s misunderstanding of his medical 

history. This does not raise a legal issue over which we 

may exercise jurisdiction. Similarly, the Veterans Court’s 

determination that Mr. Curry did not raise the issue of 

TDIU is a factual determination, or an application of law 

to fact, that we lack jurisdiction to review. Because Mr. 

Curry only challenges fact findings or the application of 

law to fact, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal with 

respect to the finally adjudicated claims. 

As to Mr. Curry’s appeal of his service connection 

claim for prostate cancer due to anthrax vaccination, the 

Board remanded this claim. Thus, there is no final judgment on this claim for our review. In Williams v. Principi, 

275 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002), we held that there is a 

limited exception to the rule that remands are not appealable when the following three conditions are met: 

(1) [T]here must have been a clear and final decision of a legal issue that (a) is separate from the 

remand proceedings, (b) will directly govern the 

remand proceedings or, (c) if reversed by this 

court, would render the remand proceedings unnecessary; 

(2) the resolution of the legal issues must adversely affect the party seeking review; and, 

(3) there must be a substantial risk that the decision would not survive a remand, i.e., that the 

remand proceeding may moot the issue.

Case: 15-7109 Document: 22-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/19/2016
CURRY v. MCDONALD 5

275 F.3d at 1364 (citations omitted). 

Mr. Curry’s claim for entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer due to anthrax vaccination does 

not fall under the exception articulated in Williams, and 

thus we have no jurisdiction over it. Mr. Curry disputes 

the Board’s factual findings with regard to his prostate 

cancer. He does not, as Williams requires, dispute a clear 

and final legal issue. We therefore dismiss Mr. Curry’s 

appeal over the Veterans Court’s remand order because it 

is not final for the purposes of invoking our jurisdiction.

Our dismissal of Mr. Curry’s appeal does not interfere 

with the further development of his service connection 

claim for prostate cancer as related to his anthrax vaccination. As the Veterans Court noted, Mr. Curry now 

has the opportunity to submit additional evidence and 

argument on that claim. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. We do not disturb the Board’s decision awarding Mr. Curry entitlement to service connection for headaches due to an undiagnosed illness. 

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 15-7109 Document: 22-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/19/2016