NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

ROBERT ROLLERSON, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2010-7141 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case no. 09-4538, Judge Kenneth B. 

Kramer. 

__________________________ 

Decided: February 9, 2011 

__________________________ 

ROBERT ROLLERSON, of Las Vegas, Nevada, pro se. 

SARAH A. MURRAY, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. 

With her on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and TODD M.
ROLLERSON v. DVA 2

HUGHES Deputy Director. Of Counsel on the brief were 

MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, 

and DANA RAFFAELLI, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

__________________________ 

Before RADER, Circuit Judge, DYK and PROST, Circuit 

Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Robert Rollerson appeals from the judgment of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the 

“Veterans’ Court”) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292. 

Because the Veterans’ Court correctly determined that it 

lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Rollerson’s appeal because 

the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) has not reached 

a final decision on the underlying claim, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Rollerson appealed a 2006 Regional Office rating 

decision denying him certain disability ratings. On 

appeal, the Board issued a decision granting a compensable initial rating on one of Mr. Rollerson’s entitlement claims, denying another, and remanding several 

additional entitlement issues to the Regional Office for 

further development. Among the remanded issues was 

Mr. Rollerson’s claim for a total disability rating based on 

individual unemployability (“TDIU”) due to serviceconnected disability. The Board noted that Mr. Rollerson’s entitlement claim folder was missing potentially 

pertinent information about his vocational rehabilitation 

training. The Board remanded the TDIU claim so that 

Mr. Rollerson’s vocational rehabilitation records could be 
3 ROLLERSON v. DVA

associated with his claims folder. The Board’s decision 

included an attachment explaining that allowed, denied, 

and dismissed claims can be appealed to the Veterans’ 

Court. The attachment further explained that issues 

remanded for additional development may not be appealed to the Veterans’ Court. 

Mr. Rollerson appealed a single issue from the 

Board’s decision to the Veterans’ Court—the TDIU claim. 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because a remand order is not a final 

Board decision that is subject to appeal. Following our 

precedent in Kirkpatrick v. Nicholson, 417 F.3d 1361, 

1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Veterans’ Court concluded that 

it did not have jurisdiction to review the Board’s remand 

order. The Veterans’ Court explained that Mr. Rollerson 

must wait to appeal until the Board issues a final decision 

on the merits of the TDIU claim following additional 

development of the record. 

Mr. Rollerson now appeals from the decision of the 

Veterans’ Court. He asks this court to make a final 

decision on the TDIU claim and to close his case. He 

believes that remanding the TDIU claim is a “money and 

time waster,” and he would like this court to decide his 

claim based on the evidence he submitted to this court 

with his appeal brief. 

DISCUSSION

This court’s precedent forecloses the relief Mr. Rollerson requests. See Kirkpatrick, 417 F.3d at 1364-66. The 

Board has not yet decided Mr. Rollerson’s TDIU claim. 

We have previously explained that the Veterans’ Court’s 

jurisdiction is limited to reviewing Board “decisions.” Id. 

A Board “decision” is an order granting or denying relief. 
ROLLERSON v. DVA 4

Id. at 1364. A remand order such as the one at issue in 

this case does not grant or deny relief, and thus it is not 

reviewable by the Veterans’ Court. Id. 

The Board remanded the TDIU claim for further development concerning Mr. Rollerson’s participation in a 

vocational rehabilitation program through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and his inability to obtain 

employment. The Board concluded that such information 

was pertinent to its evaluation of the claim. Mr. Rollerson concedes that these records are not currently part of 

his claim file despite repeated requests. He points to 

various hurdles to obtaining the requested information, 

including the fact that his case manager from that time 

has retired and the vocational training program he participated in is now closed. 

While we appreciate that Mr. Rollerson is anxious to 

have his claim resolved, it is the Board, rather than this 

court, that must do so in the first instance. We remind 

Mr. Rollerson that if the information the Board requested 

is unavailable, the Board asked that this fact be noted for 

the record. The Board also indicated that Mr. Rollerson 

has the right to submit additional evidence and argument 

on his remanded TDIU claim. Once such factual development is complete, the Board can make a final decision 

approving or denying the claim. If he wishes to do so, Mr. 

Rollerson will have the opportunity to appeal the Board’s 

final decision to the Veterans’ Court at that time. 

CONCLUSION

Because the Veterans’ Court correctly concluded that 

it did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Rollerson’s appeal, we 

affirm the Veterans’ Court’s dismissal of Mr. Rollerson’s 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 
5 ROLLERSON v. DVA

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs. 

AFFIRMED