N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

CECILE A. BROWN,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRE TARY 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

________________ ______
C ECILE A. B ROWN , Alexandria, LA, pro se.

J OSEPH A LAN P IXLEY , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by J OSEPH H. H UNT , C LAUDIA B URKE , R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN , J R

. ; Y. K EN L EE , D EREK S CADDEN , Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs

, Washington, DC

.BROWN v. WILKIE 2

______________________
Before D YK , W ALLACH , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. 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 re manded for further proceedings. We dismiss.

B ACKGROUND

Ms. Brown is the daughter of William Ellis

, who served in the United States Army f rom 1986 to 1992. When Mr. Ellis d ied in 2009, he had received “ a 60 percent [ disability ] rating [ for psoriasis ] under Diagnostic Code [ ( ‘ DC ’ ) ] 7816

, ” which is the maximum schedul a r 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 increase d psoriasis rating) and dependency a nd indemnity compensation. I n 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, t he Veterans Court remanded to the Board to address “ potentially favorable evidence ” that might support an extra

- schedular rating

. 2 App’x 1 8

– 1 9

.

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

. W e dismissed the appeal because that de cision wa s 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 “sympto ms of itching and painful lesions are adequately contemplate d by DC 7816, which contemplates psoria s is that involves more t h an 40 percent of the entire body area affected” and explainedthat 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 “ th e Board provided an unsubstantiated medical opinion for finding that th e 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 employmen t, ” App’x 5

. It thus vacated the Board’s decision and again remanded for readjudication. Ms. Brown now appeals.

D ISCUSSION

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 order s “because they are not final judgments

. ” Williams v. Principi, 275 F.3d 1361, 1363

– 64 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation s omitted)

. Th e finality

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

requirement avoids “ unnecessary piecemeal appellate review without precluding later appellate review of the legalissue or any other determination made on a complete administrative record.” Cabot Corp. v. United States, 788 F.2d 1539, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

T he Veterans Court’s decision on appeal is a non

- final decision because the Veterans Court remanded to the Board to readjudicat e the claim regarding the psoriasis rating. There fore, 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 a n y 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 bee n adjudicated by the Veterans Court in its decision on appeal , and is not in a posture appropriate for our review

. W e 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 f inal decision by the Veterans Court before appealing to this court.

DISMISSED

C OSTS

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, E CF 4 7

.