Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02235/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02235-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Betzaida P. Jernigan
Appellant
Robert L. Wilkie
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BETZAIDA P. JERNIGAN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT L. WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2019-2235

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 18-2918, Judge Amanda L. Meredith.

______________________

Decided: April 10, 2020

______________________

BETZAIDA P. JERNIGAN, Lake Helen, FL, pro se. 

 ROBERT C. BIGLER, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

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

JOSEPH H. HUNT, ALLISON KIDD-MILLER, ROBERT EDWARD 

KIRSCHMAN, JR.; Y. KEN LEE, JULIE HONAN, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

Case: 19-2235 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 04/10/2020
2 JERNIGAN v. WILKIE

 ______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, O’MALLEY and TARANTO,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Betzaida P. Jernigan appeals from a decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) dismissing her appeal of a January 29, 2018 

decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) for 

lack of jurisdiction. Jernigan v. Wilkie, No. 18-2918, 2019 

WL 273140 (Vet. App. Jan. 22, 2019). Because the Veterans Court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction 

over Jernigan’s appeal, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Jernigan served on active duty in the United States 

Navy from April 1989 until May 1995. 

In a decision dated January 29, 2018, the Board 

granted Jernigan service connection for right shoulder arthritis with tendinitis and right upper extremity cervical 

radiculopathy. Resp’t Suppl. App. (“S. App.”) 11–26. In the 

“Introduction” section of that decision, the Board explained 

relevant procedural history, including that the issue on appeal before it was one of several issues addressed by an earlier, June 2016 Board decision. Id. at 1. Specifically, the 

Board indicated that the 2016 decision: (1) remanded Jernigan’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a 

right shoulder disorder (the sole issue before the 2018 

Board); and (2) explained that Jernigan’s “claims of entitlement to earlier effective dates for grants of service connection for gastroesophageal disease, a lumbar spine disorder, 

and appendectomy scar were no longer in appellate status 

as [she] had exhausted her remedies.” Id. at 13. 

Jernigan filed a Notice of Appeal to the Veterans Court, 

challenging the Board’s January 2018 decision. Jernigan, 

2019 WL 273140, at *1. Jernigan later clarified that she 

Case: 19-2235 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 04/10/2020
JERNIGAN v. WILKIE 3

was only appealing the Board’s January 2018 remarks in 

its introduction that her earlier effective date claims for 

gastroesophageal disease, lumbar spine disorder, and appendectomy scar were not in appellate status. Id. Because 

the Board’s 2018 decision on appeal was favorable to Jernigan, and because Jernigan stated that she only objected 

to statements in that decision regarding a prior, now final 

claim, the Veterans Court ordered Jernigan to show cause 

why her appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id. 

In response, Jernigan reiterated that she was not challenging the Board’s January 2018 grant of benefits for right 

shoulder arthritis. Instead, she disputed “an unfavorable 

conclusion” in the Board’s decision that, according to Jernigan, changed her “appeal status relating to a separate 

matter . . . submitted on a valid Notice of Disagreement in 

June 2014.” Id. 

In a decision dated January 22, 2019, the Veterans 

Court dismissed Jernigan’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

In doing so, the court explained that the Board’s January 

2018 decision was favorable to Jernigan and that the remarks in the introduction section of the Board’s decision 

did not change the appellate status of her other earlier effective date claims. Id. The court further explained that 

Jernigan’s earlier effective date claims—for gastroesophageal disease, a lumbar spine disorder, and an appendectomy scar—were previously appealed to the Veterans 

Court and were denied. Id. at *1 n.2 (citing Jernigan v. 

Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 220 (2012), aff’d 521 F. App’x 931 

(Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied 572 U.S. 1062 (2014)). Those 

earlier claims were not before the Board when it rendered 

its 2018 decision and are not before this court on appeal.

Jernigan moved for reconsideration by a panel. S. App.

6. The Veterans Court granted the motion, and the panel 

Case: 19-2235 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 04/10/2020
4 JERNIGAN v. WILKIE

held that the January 2019 single-judge order would remain the decision of the court. The court entered final 

judgment on April 12, 2019. This appeal followed. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review Veterans Court decisions is 

limited by statute. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), the 

court may review “the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . 

. . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination 

as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] 

Court in making the decision.” Unless the case presents a 

constitutional issue, we “may not review (A) a challenge to 

a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). We have recognized, however, that the 

“jurisdictional reach of the Veterans Court presents a question of law for our plenary review.” Maggitt v. West, 202 

F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

On appeal, the government argues that we should dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because, although 

Jernigan asserts in her informal brief that the Veterans 

Court’s decision involved the validity or interpretation of a 

statute or regulation, review of the court’s decision makes 

clear it did not engage in that type of analysis. Nor did it 

decide any constitutional issues.1 Instead, the Veterans 

Court dismissed Jernigan’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

By statute, the Veterans Court’s jurisdiction is limited 

to review of final Board decisions that are adverse to the 

claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a); Bond v. Derwinksi, 2 Vet. 

App. 376, 377 (1992). A claimant therefore must be “ad1 Indeed, Jernigan expressly indicates in her informal brief that the Veterans Court’s decision did not decide 

a constitutional issue. Appellant Informal Br. 1, item 3. 

Case: 19-2235 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 04/10/2020
JERNIGAN v. WILKIE 5

versely affected” by a decision of the Board in order to appeal to the Veterans Court. Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 

1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that the Veterans Court 

“considers this a ‘standing’ requirement and that a party 

must, therefore, show some actual or threatened injury”). 

Accordingly, the Veterans Court lacks jurisdiction over 

Board decisions that are favorable to the veteran. Woods 

v. Shinseki, 492 F. App’x 112, 114 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Because the Board’s holding reinstated his benefits and was 

therefore favorable to [the veteran], the Veterans Court appropriately dismissed his appeal.”). 

Here, the Board’s January 2018 decision that Jernigan 

appealed to the Veterans Court addressed a single issue: 

entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder. The Board granted that claim, awarding service 

connection for right shoulder arthritis with tendinitis and 

right upper extremity cervical radiculopathy. 

Before the Veterans Court, Jernigan made clear that 

she is not dissatisfied with the Board’s decision in this appeal—only with its recitation of procedural history relating 

to other claims that were separately adjudicated in full.2 

Because the Board’s 2018 decision granted Jernigan the 

benefits she sought and thus was entirely in her favor, 

there was no adverse action she could appeal to the Veter2 As the Veterans Court noted, Jernigan’s earlier effective date claims for gastroesophageal reflux disease, a 

lumbar spine disorder, and an appendectomy scar were 

considered and denied by the Board in 2010, the Veterans 

Court in 2012, and this court in 2013. Jernigan, 2019 WL 

273140, at *1, n.2. To the extent Jernigan’s informal brief 

seeks to assert clear and unmistakable error relating to 

those claims, she cannot do so for the first time on appeal. 

Case: 19-2235 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 04/10/2020
6 JERNIGAN v. WILKIE

ans Court. See 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a). Accordingly, the Veterans Court did not err when it dismissed Jernigan’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

Because the Veterans Court correctly concluded that it 

lacked jurisdiction over Jernigan’s appeal, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 19-2235 Document: 24 Page: 6 Filed: 04/10/2020