Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01150/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01150-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher D. Ingle
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CHRISTOPHER D. INGLE,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1150

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-1817, Judge Mary J. Schoelen.

______________________ 

Decided: April 11, 2016

______________________ 

 CHRISTOPHER D. INGLE, Port Saint Lucie, FL, pro se.

 RETA EMMA BEZAK, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN A. MIZOGUCHI, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER; Y. KEN LEE, SAMANTHA ANN 

SYVERSON, Office of General Counsel, United States

Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Case: 16-1150 Document: 19-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/11/2016
2 INGLE v. MCDONALD

Before REYNA, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Christopher D. Ingle appeals from an order issued by 

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(Veterans Court) on September 10, 2015. Ingle v. McDonald, No. 15-1817, 2015 WL 5286708 (Vet. App. Sept. 10, 

2015) (Order). The Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Ingle’s 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals (Board) had not yet issued a final decision on 

Mr. Ingle’s claim for disability benefits. Because the 

Veterans Court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Ingle’s appeal, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Ingle filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on October 2, 2011, seeking disability 

benefits related to an allegedly service-connected bilateral 

knee condition. In a Rating Decision dated October 11, 

2012, the VA denied Mr. Ingle’s claim. Mr. Ingle filed a 

Notice of Disagreement on November 14, 2012, and requested de novo review of his file. Over two years later, 

on December 3, 2014, the VA again denied Mr. Ingle’s 

claim. Mr. Ingle submitted VA Form 9 (“Appeal to Board 

of Veterans’ Appeals”) on March 10, 2015, thereby appealing the VA’s decision to the Board. Mr. Ingle’s file was 

formally transferred to the Board on August 10, 2015, 

where it remains pending awaiting a hearing before the 

Board.

On May 3, 2015, the Veterans Court docketed 

Mr. Ingle’s Notice of Appeal of an alleged final decision of 

the Board. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed a 

motion to dismiss Mr. Ingle’s appeal on the ground that, 

in fact, the Board had yet to enter a final decision and the 

Veterans Court therefore lacked jurisdiction. In response, 

Mr. Ingle submitted a screenshot of the VA’s eBenefits 

website that suggested the Board had entered a final 

decision on his claim on March 2, 2015. 

Case: 16-1150 Document: 19-2 Page: 2 Filed: 04/11/2016
INGLE v. MCDONALD 3

Citing the evidence submitted by Mr. Ingle, the Veterans Court ordered the Secretary “to submit a reply to 

the appellant’s opposition to his motion to dismiss, specifically addressing the VA eBenefits website notification 

that appears to indicate that the appellant’s appeal was 

decided by the Board on March 2, 2015.” J.A. 24–25. The 

Secretary submitted its reply on August 27, 2015. The 

reply included a declaration from Bruce P. Gipe, Principal 

Deputy Vice Chairman of the Board. J.A. 31–34. In his 

declaration, Mr. Gipe explained that the eBenefits website contained “inaccuracies” and that the VA had suspended its use of the website to provide appeal status. 

J.A. 33. Mr. Gipe further explained that he had reviewed 

the VA’s internal database (known as VACOLS) and 

confirmed that no final decision had been issued by the 

Board with respect to Mr. Ingle’s claim. J.A. 31. Mr. Gipe 

included in his declaration screen shots of the VACOLS 

database confirming the pending status of Mr. Ingle’s 

appeal. J.A. 32–33.

Mr. Ingle subsequently confirmed that he had not yet 

received a decision from the Board. J.A. 55.

Based on the above evidence, the Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Ingle’s appeal on September 10, 2015. The 

Veterans Court explained that “[p]ursuant to 38 U.S.C. 

§§ 7252 and 7266(a), in order for a claimant to obtain 

review of a Board decision by [the Veterans Court], that 

decision must be final.” Order, 2015 WL 5286708, at *1. 

While the Veterans Court found the “misinformation” 

communicated via the VA’s eBenefits website “unfortunate,” it ultimately found that “there [wa]s no final Board 

decision to appeal.” Id.

Mr. Ingle filed a motion to reconsider on September 

26, 2015. The Veterans Court denied this motion. Mr. 

Ingle now appeals to this court.

Case: 16-1150 Document: 19-2 Page: 3 Filed: 04/11/2016
4 INGLE v. MCDONALD

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. Guillory v. Shinseki, 603 F.3d 

981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1), 

we have jurisdiction over “all relevant questions of law, 

including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). The Veterans Court’s 

decision that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Ingle’s appeal 

was a matter of statutory interpretation. See Ledford v. 

West, 136 F.3d 776, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We therefore 

have jurisdiction over this appeal. We review the Veterans Court’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction de novo. 

Id.

We conclude that the Veterans Court properly dismissed Mr. Ingle’s appeal. The Veterans Court’s jurisdiction is defined by 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a):

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims shall 

have exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of 

the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The Secretary 

may not seek review of any such decision. The 

Court shall have power to affirm, modify, or reverse a decision of the Board or to remand the 

matter, as appropriate.

Under this provision, the Veterans Court’s jurisdiction “‘is 

premised on and defined by the Board’s decision concerning the matter being appealed,’ and when the Board has 

not rendered a decision on a particular issue, the court has 

no jurisdiction to consider it under section 7252(a).” 

Howard v. Gober, 220 F.3d 1341, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 

(emphasis added) (quoting Ledford, 136 F.3d at 779).

Here, there is no dispute that the Board has yet to 

render a final decision with regard to Mr. Ingle’s disability claim. While the VA’s eBenefits website at one time 

noted that a final decision had issued, the Veterans Court

found that the website was in error. Order, 2015 WL 

5286708, at *1. Mr. Ingle agrees that he “ha[s] to date not 

Case: 16-1150 Document: 19-2 Page: 4 Filed: 04/11/2016
INGLE v. MCDONALD 5

received a Board Decision.” Informal Br. of Appellant, 

App. 1 at 2.

Other issues raised by Mr. Ingle cannot change this 

result. In his informal brief, Mr. Ingle answered affirmatively to questions asking if (1) the Veterans Court’s 

decision involved the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation; and (2) he has other arguments he 

wishes to make. For each question, Mr. Ingle cited to 

certain statutory and regulatory provisions (38 U.S.C. 

§§ 501(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102) relating to the 

manner in which the VA weighs evidence when it reviews 

a claim. These provisions are not applicable here, where 

no final decision has been entered by the Board. Rather, 

they should be part of the analysis performed by the 

Board when it rules on Mr. Ingle’s appeal.1

Because the Board has not yet rendered a final decision, we agree that the Veterans Court lacked jurisdiction 

to hear Mr. Ingle’s appeal. We therefore affirm the Veterans Court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.2 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs. 

 

1 The court notes that Mr. Ingle filed his disability 

claim in October 2011. His appeal to the Board has been 

pending since at least August 10, 2015. The court encourages the Board to take up Mr. Ingle’s appeal and 

issue a decision promptly.

2 On February 23, 2016 and March 1, 2016, Mr. Ingle submitted letters to the court with additional information he considered relevant to the case. The court has 

considered Mr. Ingle’s supplemental filings and finds that 

they have no bearing on the Veterans Court’s jurisdiction 

to hear Mr. Ingle’s appeal.

Case: 16-1150 Document: 19-2 Page: 5 Filed: 04/11/2016