NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 13, 2013

______________________ 

ANDREW P. KALICK, of Mt. Ephraim, New Jersey, pro 

se. 

SETH W. GREENE, Trial Attorney, Civil Division, 

Commercial Litigation Branch, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendantappellee. With him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, 

Director, and PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, Assistant Director. 

Of counsel were MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant 

General Counsel, and ANNA ELAZAN, Attorney, United 
2 KALICK v. US

States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, 

DC.

______________________ 

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

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 disability benefits. Kalick v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 551 

(2013). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

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. The VA’s determination 

on his application is not in the record, but Mr. Kalick 

contends that the VA found his injuries to be serviceconnected, 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 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Id. at 

555. On the government’s motion, the court dismissed 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 Veterans’ 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 transfer his action to a district court or to this court. Id. at 

559–61.

Mr. Kalick timely appealed the decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 
KALICK v. US 3

II. DISCUSSION

Whether the Court of Federal Claims possesses jurisdiction over a claim is a question of law subject to de novo

review. Western 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 Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1988 (“VJRA”) establishes the

appellate review process for individual challenges to VA 

benefits determinations. 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, 

242 Fed. App’x 698, 700–01 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Zuspann v. 

Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1158–59 (5th Cir. 1995); Sugrue v. 

Derwinski, 26 F.3d 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 determination. 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 disability retirement pay brought under 

10 U.S.C. § 1201, a different statute than at issue here. 

This court has found section 1201 to be a moneymandating statute, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the 

Court of Federal Claims for claims arising under that 
4 KALICK v. US

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. Cir. 2005). Mr. Kalick’s disability 

benefits claim, however, arises under 38 U.S.C. § 1110. 

As 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 section 1110 is a 

money-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 displaced when money-mandating statute contains its own 

judicial remedies).

Furthermore, the 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 benefits claim, and precedent uniformly holds that district 

courts lack jurisdiction over such 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 particular case.”). Second, this case does not qualify as one 

which this court enjoys original jurisdiction to hear: that 

is, claims brought under 38 U.S.C. § 502 that allege an 

agency violated 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)’s publication requirements or 5 U.S.C. § 553’s notice-and-comment rulemaking 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 veterans’ benefits statutes to the facts of his particu-
KALICK v. US 5

lar claim”).1 The Court of Federal Claims thus acted well 

within its discretion in denying the motion to transfer.

We have considered Mr. Kalick’s remaining arguments and conclude they are without merit. For the 

foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Federal 

Claims is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

1 It appears that Mr. Kalick also requests that we 

toll a deadline for filing a future claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Appellant’s Br. 13. We 

decline to afford such equitable relief prospectively by 

tolling the filing deadline for an unfiled claim.