NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CECILE A. BROWN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2019-2066

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 18-5977, Judge William S. Greenberg.

______________________

Decided: December 6, 2019

______________________

CECILE A. BROWN, Alexandria, LA, pro se. 

 JOSEPH ALAN PIXLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

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

JOSEPH H. HUNT, CLAUDIA BURKE, ROBERT EDWARD 

KIRSCHMAN, JR.; Y. KEN LEE, DEREK SCADDEN, Office of 

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC. 
2 BROWN v. WILKIE

 ______________________

Before DYK, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Cecile A. Brown appeals the judgment of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”). The Veterans Court vacated the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision and remanded for further 

proceedings. We dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Brown is the daughter of William Ellis, who served 

in the United States Army from 1986 to 1992. When 

Mr. Ellis died in 2009, he had received “a 60 percent [disability] rating [for psoriasis] under Diagnostic Code [(‘DC’)]

7816,” which is the maximum schedular rating under that 

code. App’x 8.1 He had claims pending before the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), including one for an increased psoriasis rating. After his death, Ms. Brown filed 

a claim for entitlement to accrued benefits (based on the 

asserted right to an increased psoriasis rating) and dependency and indemnity compensation. In July 2009, the 

VA Regional Office denied her claim for entitlement to accrued benefits.

On appeal, the Board denied Ms. Brown’s accrued benefits claim. On review, the Veterans Court remanded to 

the Board to address “potentially favorable evidence” that 

might support an extra-schedular rating.2 App’x 18–19. 

 

1 “App’x” refers to the appendix attached to the government’s response brief.

2 An extra-schedular rating may be approved in unusual cases where the “application of the regular schedular 

standards is impractical because the disability is so excep-
BROWN v. WILKIE 3

Ms. Brown appealed the Veterans Court’s decision to this 

court. We dismissed the appeal because that decision was 

not final. Brown v. Shulkin, 708 F. App’x 686, 687–88 (Fed. 

Cir. 2018).

In July 2018, on remand, the Board decided that an extra-schedular rating was not warranted because “the evidence does not show an exceptional or unusual disability 

picture.” App’x 13. It found that “symptoms of itching and 

painful lesions are adequately contemplated by DC 7816, 

which contemplates psoriasis that involves more than 

40 percent of the entire body area affected” and explained 

that the “term ‘affected’ would reasonably include symptoms associated with psoriasis, which generally would encompass itchy and painful skin.” App’x 12.

In May 2019, the Veterans Court held that “the Board 

provided an unsubstantiated medical opinion for finding 

that the term ‘affected’ included [Mr. Ellis’s] symptoms,”

App’x 4, and that “the Board failed to explain how [his] inability to wear clothing because of his painful lesions did 

not cause marked interference with employment,” App’x 5. 

It thus vacated the Board’s decision and again remanded 

for readjudication. Ms. Brown now appeals.

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review in an appeal from a Veterans 

Court’s decision is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. 

Although it does not recite a finality requirement, we have 

“generally declined to review non-final orders of the Veterans Court” such as remand orders “because they are not 

final judgments.” Williams v. Principi, 275 F.3d 1361, 

1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). The finality 

 

tional or unusual due to such related factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). 
4 BROWN v. WILKIE

requirement avoids “unnecessary piecemeal appellate review without precluding later appellate review of the legal 

issue or any other determination made on a complete administrative record.” Cabot Corp. v. United States, 788 

F.2d 1539, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

The Veterans Court’s decision on appeal is a non-final 

decision because the Veterans Court remanded to the 

Board to readjudicate the claim regarding the psoriasis rating. Therefore, as we held in our earlier ruling in this case,

Brown, 708 F. App’x at 687–88, the finality requirement 

has not been satisfied by a remand only. Williams, 275 

F.3d at 1364. There is no claim here that any exception to 

finality applies. See id.

Here, Ms. Brown states that she wishes to present “arguments pertaining to . . . [a] wrongful death claim.”3 Appellant Br. 1. This issue has not been adjudicated by the 

Veterans Court in its decision on appeal, and is not in a 

posture appropriate for our review.

We conclude that the Veterans Court’s decision is not 

final for the purpose of our review and therefore dismiss 

the appeal. Ms. Brown must receive a final decision by the 

Veterans Court before appealing to this court. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs. 

 

3 In a supplemental filing, Ms. Brown withdrew arguments pertaining to her “CUE [(‘clear and unmistakable 

error’)] claim and early effective date of death claim.” First 

Suppl. to Reply Br. 1, ECF 47.