N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ ANDREW P. KALICK, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 5065

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 12

- CV

- 783, Chief Judge Emily C. Hewitt.

______________________

Decided: November 1 3 , 2013

______________________

A NDREW P. K ALICK , of Mt. Ephraim, New Jersey, pro

se.

S ETH W. G REENE , Trial Attorney, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, United States Depar tment of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant

appellee. With him on the brief were S TUART F. D ELERY , Acting Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Director, and P ATRICIA M. M C C ARTHY , Assistant Director. Of counsel were M ICHAEL J. T IMINSKI , Deputy Assistant General Counsel

, and A NNA E LAZA N , Attorney, UnitedKALICK v. US 2

States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

______________________
Before R EYNA , T ARANTO , and C HEN , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. Andrew Kalick appeals the Court of Federal Claims ’ decision that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Kalick’s suit alleging that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) erroneously denied him disabi lity benefits

. Kalick v. United States , 109 Fed. Cl. 551 (2013)

. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I. B ACKGROUND
Mr. Kalick is a veteran of the United States Army

. He applied to the VA for disability benefits for “bi

- lateral foot disabilities” that he believed were connected to his military service. Id. at 554

– 55. T he VA’s determination on his application is not in the record, but Mr. Kalick contends that t he VA found his injuries to be service

connected, yet assigned him a 0% disability rating.

Mr. Kalick sought review of the VA’s decision by the Court of Federal Claims , asserting his entitlement to disability compensation under 3 8 U.S.C. § 1110. Id

. at 555. On the government’s motion, the court dismiss ed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction , holding that 38 U.S.C. § 511 and other provisions of Title 38, U.S. Code, require that any challenges to initial VA benefit decisions proceed through the Board of Vete rans’ Appeals (“BVA”) and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (with review then in this court)

. Id. at 556

– 58

. Additionally, the court denied Mr. Kalick’s alternative request to tran sfer his action to a district court or to this court. Id. at 559

– 61. Mr. Kalick timely appealed the decision

. We have j urisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).KALICK v. US 3

II . D ISCUSSION Whether the Court of Federal Claims possesses juri sdiction over a claim is a question of law subject to de novo review. W estern Co. of N. Am. v. United States , 323 F.3d 1024, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Mr. Kalick raises an individual challenge to the VA’s decision to assign him a 0% disability rating. The Vete rans Judicial Review Act of 1988 (“VJRA”) establishes the appellate review process for individual challenge s to VA benefit s determination s. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(a ), 7266(a). Courts have uniformly ruled that the VJRA provides the exclusive regime for reviewing denials of veteran benefits. See, e.g.

, Jackson v. United States

, 2 42 Fed. App’x 698, 700

– 01 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Zuspann v. Brown

, 60 F. 3 d 1156
, 1158

– 59 (5th Cir. 1995); Sugrue v. Derwinski

, 26 F. 3 d 8
, 10

– 11 (2d Cir. 1994); Hicks v. Veterans Admin. , 961 F.2d 1367, 1369

– 70 (8th Cir. 1992). Under the VJRA, an individual challenge to the VA’s initial benefits determination must be brought by filing a notice of disagreement (“NOD”) with the BVA within one year of the deter mination. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(a), 7105(a). BVA decisions are subject to review only by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) . Thus, as we have previously noted, “ the [VA’s] decisions can be appealed only to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, not to the Court of Federal Claims .” Jackson , 242 Fed . App’x at 701

. Therefore, the Court of Federal Claims properly found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction

over Mr. Kalick’s suit

. Mr. Kalick’s reliance on Sabo v. United States

, 102 Fed. Cl. 619 (2011), is misplaced. Sabo concerned a claim for dis ability retirement pay brought under 10 U.S.C. § 1201
, a different statute than at issue here

. T his court has found s ection 1201 to be a moneymandating statute , thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims for claims arising under thatKALICK v. US 4

statute

. See Chambers v. United States , 417 F.3d 1218, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Fisher v. United States

, 402 F.3d 1167, 1174

– 75 (Fed. C ir. 2005 ). Mr. Kalick ’s disability benefits claim , however, arises under 38 U.S.C. § 1110

. A s explained above, Title 38 establishes an exclusive remedial procedure for review of VA disability benefits decisions. In light of that detailed statutory scheme, Mr. Kalick must seek review of his claim through the VJRA’s procedures ; it is irrelevant whether s ection 1110 is a

mone y- mandating statute , an issue we need not decide

. See United States v. Bormes , 133 S. Ct. 12, 18 (2012) (explaining that jurisdiction under Tucker Act is di splaced when money

- mandating statute contains its own judicial remedies).
Furthermore, t he Court of Federal Claims did not abuse its discretion by declining to transfer Mr. Kalick’s suit to a district court or to us. See Rick ’ s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States , 521 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (reviewing decision to transfer claim for abuse of discretion). First, Mr. Kalick ’s constitutional claims are based on the VA’s decision regarding his individual ben efits claim

, and precedent uniformly holds that district
courts lack jurisdiction over su ch allegations

. Zuspann

, 60 F.3d at 1159 ( “ Since the enactment of the VJRA, federal courts have refused to entertain constitutional claims if they are based on the VA’s actions in a partic ular case .” ). Second, this case does not qualify as one which this c ourt enjoys original jurisdiction to hear: that is, claims brought under 38 U.S.C. § 502 that allege an agency violat ed 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1) ’s publication r equirements or 5 U.S.C. § 553 ’s n otice

- and

- comment rul emaking requirements. Mr. Kalick alleges neither and, thus, transfer to our court would be inappropriate

. See Hilario v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , 937 F.2d 586, 589 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (finding that this court lacks original jurisdiction over a “ challenge [to] the VA ’ s application of the ve ter ans’ benefits statutes to the facts of his partic u-KALICK v. US 5

lar claim ”)

. 1 T he Court of Fed eral Claims thus acted well within its discre tion in deny ing the motion to transfer.

W e have considered Mr. Kalick’s remaining arg uments and conclude they are without merit . For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed

. AFFIRMED

C OSTS

No costs.

1 It appears that Mr. Kalick also requests that we toll a deadline for filing a future claim under the A d mini str a tive Procedure Act (“APA”). Appellant’s Br. 13. We decline to afford such equitable relief prospe c tively by tolling the filing deadline for an unfiled claim.