NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ERNESTO A. GARCIAMEDINA,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1104

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 19-7947, Judge Amanda L. Meredith.

______________________ 

Decided: May 15, 2023

______________________ 

KENNETH DOJAQUEZ, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, 

KS, argued for claimant-appellant. 

 AMANDA TANTUM, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., REBECCA 

SARAH KRUSER, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; AMANDA 

BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, SAMANTHA ANN SYVERSON, Office 

Case: 22-1104 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 05/15/2023
2 GARCIAMEDINA v. MCDONOUGH

of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC. 

 ______________________ 

Before HUGHES, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

HUGHES, Circuit Judge. 

Ernesto Garciamedina appeals an interlocutory order 

of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacating and 

remanding a 2019 decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Because this non-final order does not fall into the 

limited class of orders that we will consider under Williams 

v. Principi, 275 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002), we dismiss. 

I 

Mr. Garciamedina served in the United States Marine 

Corps from 1999 to 2003. In 2003, a VA regional office (RO) 

assigned him a 10 percent rating for left and right shoulder 

disabilities. The RO rated Mr. Garciamedina’s shoulder 

condition under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 

5299-5203. 

In 2016, Mr. Garciamedina brought a claim of clear and 

unmistakable error (CUE) to revise the 2003 rating decision. Mr. Garciamedina argued that the RO selected the 

wrong DC and that he should have been assigned instead 

a 20 percent disability rating for each shoulder under 38 

C.F.R. § 4.59 and DC 5201. The RO denied his CUE claim 

and he appealed to the Board. 

The Board issued a decision denying Mr. Garciamedina’s CUE claim. The Board held that there was no CUE 

in the 2003 decision. Although the Board acknowledged § 

4.59, it stated—without citation or support—that “[p]rior 

to May 23, 2016, it was longstanding VA policy to interpret 

‘the minimum compensable rating’ for a joint as a 10 percent rating, irrespective of the diagnostic code involved” 

and thus the RO in 2003 was “keeping with standard practice at the time” when it assigned Mr. Garciamedina a 10 

Case: 22-1104 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 05/15/2023
GARCIAMEDINA v. MCDONOUGH 3

percent rating. J.A. 42. The Board then stated that Sowers 

v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 472 (2016) resulted in a change 

in VA policy on May 23, 2016.

Mr. Garciamedina then appealed to the Veterans 

Court. The Veterans Court “conclude[d] that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for its decision.” J.A. 8. 

According to the Veterans Court, “the Board here did not 

provide any explanation for its pronouncement that VA 

policy changed as a result of Sowers . . . . Accordingly, the 

Court’s review of the Board’s decision is frustrated.” J.A. 8. 

The Veterans Court remanded the case to the Board. The 

Veterans Court said that Mr. Garciamedina was free to 

submit new arguments, including any raised in the appeal 

and specifically directed the Board to consider Mr. Garciamedina’s arguments. 

II

We have “‘generally declined to review non-final orders 

of the Veterans Court.’” Williams v. Principi, 275 F.3d 

1361, 1364−65 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Adams v. Principi, 

256 F.3d 1318, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); see also Winn v. 

Brown, 110 F.3d 56, 57 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Consequently, remand orders are “ordinarily [] not appealable because they 

are not final.” Adams, 256 F.3d at 1320.

Our decision in Williams provides a limited exception. 

We will depart from the strict rule of finality when a veteran establishes that: (1) the Veterans Court issued 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 issue adversely affects the party seeking 

review; and (3) there is a substantial risk that the decision 

would not survive a remand, i.e., that the remand proceeding may moot the issue. Williams, 275 F.3d at 1364.

Case: 22-1104 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 05/15/2023
4 GARCIAMEDINA v. MCDONOUGH

III

Mr. Garciamedina argues that we have jurisdiction to 

review this interlocutory remand order under Williams. 

Mr. Garciamedina posits that the remand decision serves 

as the Veterans Court’s final ruling that “it may not interpret the law unless or until the Board provides an explanation for its legal ruling.” Appellant’s Br. 12. We disagree. 

The remand decision before us does not satisfy any of the 

Williams conditions. 

The remand decision does not satisfy the first condition 

as there is no clear and final decision of a legal issue. Here, 

the Veterans Court did not even consider—let alone hold—

whether it could review the Board’s decision without a 

proper explanation for the Board’s pronouncement that VA 

policy changed because of Sowers. The remand decision

does not satisfy the second condition because the remand 

decision does not adversely affect Mr. Garciamedina. The 

remand decision does not satisfy the third condition because there is not a substantial risk that the remand proceedings will moot the issue.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, the non-final remand order 

is not immediately appealable. Therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 22-1104 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 05/15/2023