NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NELSON ORTIZ SOTO,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-2283

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 22-4767, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, 

Jr.

______________________ 

Decided: February 14, 2024

______________________ 

NELSON ORTIZ SOTO, Barranquitas, PR, pro se. 

 MATTHEW JUDE CARHART, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD,

PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 23-2283 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 02/14/2024
2 SOTO v. MCDONOUGH

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, STOLL, Circuit Judge, and 

BENCIVENGO, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM.

Nelson Ortiz Soto appeals a decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans 

Court) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For 

the following reasons, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Soto served in the Army from 1979 to 1981. S. 

Appx. 2.1 In 1999, the Veterans Affairs Regional Office 

(RO) granted Mr. Soto a 0% disability rating for a shoulder 

injury. S. Appx. 211. In 2011, after Mr. Soto requested an 

increased rating for his shoulder injury, the RO increased 

the rating to 10%. S. Appx. 175. Mr. Soto submitted a Notice of Disagreement, and the RO issued a Statement of the 

Case confirming the 10% rating. S. Appx. 164. In December 2013, Mr. Soto appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board).

The Board remanded Mr. Soto’s claim twice for additional examinations. S. Appx. 61; S. Appx. 116–19. Based 

on results of these examinations, the RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) regarding Mr. Soto’s 

shoulder injury rating, S. Appx. 23–38, before returning 

the appeal to the Board. Mr. Soto submitted an Appeals 

Satisfaction Notice stating he wished to withdraw all remaining issues contained in his recent SSOC. S. Appx. 18. 

In June 2022, the Board notified Mr. Soto that, as a result 

* Honorable Cathy A. Bencivengo, District Judge, 

United States District Court for the Southern District of 

California, sitting by designation.

1 “S. Appx.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix attached to Respondent’s Informal Brief.

Case: 23-2283 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 02/14/2024
SOTO v. MCDONOUGH 3

of his Appeals Satisfaction Notice, his claims regarding his 

shoulder injury had been withdrawn. S. Appx. 12–14. 

Mr. Soto appealed to the Veterans Court. The Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Soto’s claim for lack of jurisdiction 

because his arguments did not relate to a decision of the 

Board. S. Appx. 2–6. Mr. Soto appeals.

DISCUSSION

We have jurisdiction to 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.” 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(a). Whether the Veterans Court lacks jurisdiction is an issue of statutory construction, see 38 U.S.C.

§ 7252, which we review de novo. Howard v. Gober, 220 

F.3d 1341, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Veterans Court has 

jurisdiction to review “decisions” of the Board. 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7252(a). If the Board has not rendered a decision on a 

claim, that claim is outside of the Veterans Court’s jurisdiction. Ledford v. West, 136 F.3d 776, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

The Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Soto’s appeal because his arguments were unrelated to the Board’s June 

2022 order. S. Appx. 2–6. The Veterans Court explained 

that Mr. Soto’s arguments related to issues concerning arthritis and special monthly compensation (SMC), a type of 

disability compensation. S. Appx. 5. There is no Board decision of record regarding Mr. Soto’s arthritis or SMC eligibility. Because the appealed order related only to the

withdrawal of shoulder injury claims, S. Appx. 12–14,

which Mr. Soto did not address in his arguments, the Veterans Court’s dismissal was proper.

Mr. Soto requests we order the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) and the Board to produce documents containing information about Mr. Soto’s disability ratings. Appellant’s Informal Br. 1–2. He also continues to claim 

Case: 23-2283 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 02/14/2024
4 SOTO v. MCDONOUGH

eligibility for a “special increase benefit” under 38 C.F.R. 

§ 1114, which provides SMC to extraordinarily disabled 

veterans. Id. at 2–3. We lack jurisdiction to address the 

merits of these issues which were not decided by either the 

Board or the Veterans Court.

Though this is not the proper forum for the arguments 

asserted by Mr. Soto, he is not without recourse. Mr. Soto 

may bring a claim before the RO seeking SMC.2 If he files 

a claim for SMC, the VA’s duty to “make reasonable efforts” 

to assist Mr. Soto “in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate [his] claim” will be triggered. See 38 U.S.C. 

§ 5103A(a)(1). This would address Mr. Soto’s request for 

help obtaining documents relevant to his potential claims. 

If he wishes to obtain his claims file before filing a claim, 

he can do so by submitting Form 3288 to the VA.3

CONCLUSION

We affirm the Veterans Court’s dismissal of Mr. Soto’s 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

2 Instructions for bringing a claim for SMC are located at https://www.va.gov/disability/how-to-file-claim/. 

3 Form 3288 is available at https://www.va.gov/findforms/about-form-3288. 

Case: 23-2283 Document: 10 Page: 4 Filed: 02/14/2024