U NIT E D S TAT E S COU RT OF APP E

ALS F OR VE

TE RAN S CL

AIM S

N O
. 01- 213 3
A L BE RT E. L ONG , A P P E L L A NT ,
V . ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE .

B e fo re K R

A M E R , Chie f Judge , a n d I V E R S a n d G R E E N E , Ju dge s .

O R D E R
The ve tera

n, A l ber t E

. Lon g, appe al s, thr ough counsel , an A ugust 27, 2001, deci si on of the B oar d of

V et er ans' A ppea l s ( B oar d) that di sm i ss ed f

or l ack of

j ur i sdi ct i on h i s c l ai m f or ent itl ement

t o p r i or i t

y s c hed ul i ng f

orV A m ed i c al t r ea t m ent . The Boa r d de t er m i ned t ha t the
sc h ed u lin g o f m e d ica l ap po in t m en t s w as a m ed ica l de t erm in ation an d th u s n o t a ju sticiab le issu e a n d d ism isse d M r. Lo n g ' s a pp ea l. R ec o rd (R .) at 1-8

. F o r th e re as o n s tha t follow , M r. L o n g ’ s a pp ea l w ill be d ism isse d

. M r . L o ng a r g ue s tha t

the Boa r d e r r e d by d i s m i s s i ng hi s a p p e a l f o r l a c ko f j ur i s d i c t i o n. H e cont ends that

the B oar d has, and al w ay s did have, j ur i sdi ct i on on the basi s t hat his appe al i s not base d on a m edi cal deci si on an d that he i s ent i tl ed t o pr i or i t

y i n schedul i ng of

m edi cal t r ea t m en t as a 100% ser vi ce- conn ected vet er an pur suant t o 38 C

. F. R

. § 17

. 99 (1998) , w hic h
s t a t e d i n p e r t i ne nt

p a r t : " Unl e s s c o m p e l l i ng m e d i c a l r e a s o ns i nd i c a t e o the rwi s e , e l i g i bl e v e t e r a ns s h a ll b e fu rn is h e d o u tp a tie n t m e d ic a l s e rv ic e s o n a p ri o ri ty b a s is in th e fo ll o w in g o rd e r: ( a ) to any veter an f

or a s er vi ce- conn ected di sa bi l i t

y ; ( b) t o any vet eran w i th a ser vi ce- conn ected d isa b ilit y, rated at 5 0 pe rce n t o r m o re." A pp ella n t ’ s B rief (B r.) at 5 ; see also R

. at

70 (Subst ant ive A ppea l t o B oar d)

. M r . Lon g st at es t h at his m edi cal appoi nt m ent s a t the V A M edi cal C ent er ( V A M C ) i n Pr es c ot

t , A r i z ona , wer e e i therc anc el l ed orc ha nge d o n num er ous oc c as i ons i n 1994 in v iola t ion o f § 1 7 .9 9 . O n N o v em b er 5 , 1 9 9 9 , w h ile M r. L o n g ’ s c laim w as pe n d in g b efo re V A , § 1 7 .9 9 w as rem o v ed fr o m V A ’ s reg u lation s. See 64 Fed. R eg. 54207 ( 1999). H e ar gues tha t r emand i s r eq ui r ed f

or the Boar d t o r ea dj udi c ate hi s c l ai m t o a ddr es s hi s ar gu m ent i n the f i r s t i nst anc e a nd f

orthe Boa r d t o c om ply wi th the no t i c e a nd a s s i s t anc e p r ov i s i ons of the V et er ans C l ai m s A ss i st ance A ct of 2000 (V C A A ) , Pub

. L. N o. 106- 475, 114 S t at . 2096, now co d if ied at 3 8 U .S .C . § § 5 1 0 2 , 5 1 0 3 , an d 5 1 0 3 A

. Th e Secr et ar

y ar g u es t h at

the schedul i ng of

m edi cal appoi nt m ent s i s a m edi cal de t er m i nat i on, ex pr es s l y be y ond t he s c op e o f

the Boa r d' s j ur i s di c t i on unde r 38 C. F. R. § 20. 101 ( 2003). Secr et ar

y ' s ( Sec. ) B r . at 5. H e con t ends that the cat egor i es of pr i or i t y st at us cont ai ned in § 17 .99 w ere cr eat ed f

or t h e en r oll m en t of ve t eran s int o th e h ealt h care syst em an d n ot

f or use in prio rit y sc h ed u lin g o f m ed ica l ap po in t m en t s. Id

.2

O n O c t o be r 30 , 20 02 , M r . L o ng f i l e d a r e p l y br i e f c o nt e nd i ng tha t the a d opt i on of 38 C. F. R. § 17. 49 o n Sep t ember 17, 200 2, di r ec tl y ad dr es s es the pr obl em t ha t he h as r ai s ed

. H e s t ates th at “b y res o lvin g [t h e] a pp ella n t ’ s iss u e th rou g h ad m in istr ative ac t ion , th e S ec retary acknow l edges that

[ the] appe l l ant

had n ot r ai sed a m edi cal questi on.” R epl y B r . at 2- 3. Sect i on 1 7 .4 9 pro v id es : I n schedul i ng appoi nt m ent s f or out pati ent

m edi cal ser

vi ces and adm i ss i ons f

or i npat i ent hospi t al car e, the U nd er Secr et ar y f or H eal th shal l give pr i or i t y t o: ( a) V et er ans w i th ser

vi ce- conn ected di sa bi l i t i es r at ed 50 per cent or gr eater base d
on on e or m or e di sa bi l i t i es orun em pl oy abi l i t y ; and (b) V et er ans needing car e f or a s erv ice -con n ec t ed d isa b ilit y. 3 8 C .F .R

. § 1 7 .4 9 (2 0 0 3 ). A lt h o u g h § 1 7 .4 9 w as ad o pted th ree w ee k s b efo re the S ec retary su b m it t ed h is b rief, h e d id n o t ad d ress th is n ew reg u lation an d in stea d arg u ed th at prio ri ty s c h e d u li n g o f m e d ic a l a p p o in tm e n ts w a s a m e d ic a l d e c is io n a n d th u s n o t w ith in th e B o a rd ’s ju risd iction

. O n O c t o be r 3, 20 03 , the Cou r t o r d e r e d the p a r t i e s t o f

i l e s up p l e m e nt a l br i e f

s a d d r e s s i ng w hat ef f ect , i f any, the enact m ent of 38 C

. F. R

. § 17

. 49 had on M r . Lon g' s a ppea l

. I n res ponse, the Secr et ar

y ar gues t

hat the n ew r egul at i on en abl es de si gnat ed gr ou ps o f v etera ns t o enjoy pr i or i t y s c hed ul i ng a nd tha t

M r . Lo ng w as not

ent i tl ed t o p r i or i t

y s c hed ul i ng p r i ort o t

he
r e g u l a t i o n ' s e n a c t me n t

o n S e p t e mb e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 2

. S e c . S u p p l e me n t a l ( S u p p l

. ) B r . a t 2

. He cont ends that

the pr om ul gat i on of § 17. 49 has r ender ed M r . Lon g' s a ppea l m oot and dis m i ss al is r eq u ired b ec au se th ere is n o w n o ca se o r co n t rov ersy b efo re the C o u rt . Id

. In resp o n se , M r. L o n g a r g u e s th a t

h i s c l a i m w a s n o t r e s o lv e d b y th e a d o p t i o n o f § 1 7

. 4 9

. S u p p l

. B r . a t 1
- 4

. He
c o n te n d s th a t th e q u e s tio n ra is e d o n a p p e a l i s w h e th e r th e s c h e d u li n g o f m e d ic a l a p p o in tm e n ts i s a m edi cal deci si on im m u n e fr o m rev iew b y the B oar d. M r . Lon g ar gues t hat the n ew r egul at i on prov i des no ass ur ance that a subsequent chal l enge of r i ght t o pr i or i t y t r eatm ent

base d
on di sa bi l i t

y st at us wil l not

be di sm i ss ed by V A as a m er e com pl ai nt r egar di ng indiv i dual
m ed ica l ca re, im m u n e from rev iew b y th e B o ard an d th e C o u rt . Id. at 2 -3. H e u rge s the C o u rt t o r e m a nd the Boa r d ’ s d e t e r m i na t i o n tha t hi s c l a i m wa s ba s e d o n a m e d i c a l d e t e r m i na t i o n a nd b ey o n d th e B o ard ’ s ju risd iction

. This Court has ad o p t ed the case- or-c ontroversy jurisdictional require ments imposed by Article I I I of the U.S. Constitution. Se eZe v alk ink v . B ro wn , 102 F.3d 1236, 1243 ( Fe d. Cir. 1996),
ce r t

. denied, 521 U.S. 1103 (1997) ; Arons on v. Brown , 7 V et . A pp. 153, 155 (1994) ( st at i ng that
w her e ca se bec om es m oot , C our t i s dives t ed o f j ur i sdi ct i on t o consi der i t)

. W hen the r el i ef sought by a n appeal or pet i t i on h as been accom pl i shed, the appr opr i at e cour se of acti on is f

or th e C o u rt

t o d ism iss th e m att er a s m o o t . See Rif e v . Br own , 7 V et . A pp. 340, 341 (19 9 4 ) ( per c ur iam o rde r); Bond v . D er winski , 2 V et . A pp. 376, 377 (1992) ( " W hen t h ere is no cas e or cont r over sy , or w hen a once l i ve ca se orcont r over sybecom es m oot , the C our t l acks j ur i sdi ct i on." )

. Th er e i s a n exce pt i on t o the gener al r ul e that the C our t i s dives t ed of j ur i sdi ct i on t o con sider m oo t

m att ers i n cases th at

are "capable of r epe t ition , yet eva din g review ." Mur

p hy
v. Hu nt , 455 U .S. 4 78, 482 ( 198 2)

. I n the a bs enc e o f a c l as s ac t i on, t

wo co ndi t i ons m us t

be
s ati s f i ed i n or de r t o qu al i f

y unde r the " c ap ab l e of r ep eti t i on, y et ev ad i ng r ev i ew” ex c ep t i on t o t he3

m oot ness doc t r i ne: " ( 1) the chal l enged act i on w as i n it s dur at i on t oo shor t t o be f ul l y l i t i gat ed p r i o r t o i t s c e s s a t i o n o r e x p i r a t i o n , a n d ( 2 ) th e r e wa s a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n th a t t he s a me com plai n ing part

y w ou ld be su bject ed t o th e s am e act ion again ." See Rife , 7 V et . A pp . at 341 ( q uo t i ng Wein stei n v. Bradfo rd , 423 U

. S. 147 , 149 ( 197 5) ( pe r c ur i am) )

. A l t er nat ive l y , as t o t he
sec ond conditi on, the pet i t i oner m ust show " the exi stence of an i m m edi at e gover nm ent al acti on or poli cy t

h at h as ad verselyaf

f ect ed an d co n t inu es t o aff ect a pre s e n t

int erest ." Super Tire Eng ineer ing Co

. v. Mc Co r kle , 4 1 6 U .S . 1 1 5 , 1 2 5 -26 (1 9 7 4 ).
Th e ac t ion t hat

M r . Lon g r eques t s, pr i or i t y sc heduli ng f

or m edi cal appoi nt m ent s, has be en c om pl eted by V A wi th the ena c t m ent of § 17. 49. D es pi t e t

ha t ac t i on, M r . Lo ng c ont ends that the B oar d has, and alw ays d id h ave, j ur i sdi ct i on b eca use pr i or i t y sc heduli ng of

m edi cal appoi nt m ent s i s not

a m edi cal questi on. A l though M r . Lon g concedes i n h i s r epl y br i ef that h is is s u e h a s b e e n re s o lv e d b y a d m in is trativ e a c tio n , h e c o n ten d s in h is s u p p le m e n tal b rie f:
T h e en actm ent

of 38 C

. F. R

. § 17

. 49 pr ovi des no ass er t i on, as sur ance or e x p e c t a t i o n tha t

a s ub s e q ue nt

c ha l l e ng e o f r i g ht t o p r i o r i t y o f m e d i c a l t r e a t m e nt b as ed o n d isa b ilit

y status o f t

h e v ete ra n w il l n o t

b e d ism isse d as a m ere c om pl ai nt

r eg ar di ng i ndivi dua l m ed i c al c ar e, i m m une f r om r ev i ew of

the [ Boar d]
an d th e C ou r t . Th e prob lem is easy t o il lust r at e. I f th e C ou r t

dism iss es th e case as m oo t , any [ v] eter an[ s ' ] hos pi t al c oul d, de s pi t e the r eg ul ati on, den y a 100%
ser vi ce[
- ] conn ected vet er an pr i or i t y f or m edi cal t r eatm ent . Th e aggr i eved veter an woul d not

have anyl eg al r emedy t o r ely up on t o i nsi s t tha t he h as pr i or i t

y . The ho s p i t a l c o ul d s t i l l m a i nt a i n tha t the i s s ue i s a n i nd iv i d ua l m e d i c a l d e c i s i o n. S u pp l. B r. at

2 -3.
M r . Lo ng’ s c onten t ions ar e u ncl ea r c onc er ni ng what , i f any , pr es ent

l eg al ha r m he
s uf f e r s . H e ha s no t

a l l e g e d i n a nyo f

hi s thr e e br i e f

s t o the Cou r t

tha t he i s c ur r e ntl y be i ng d en ied prio rit

y status in th e s ch ed u lin g o f his m ed ica l ap po in t m en ts at t h e V A M C . M r. L o ng ’ s p r e d i c t i on of f

ut ur e d e ni a l s i s m e r e l y c o nj e c tur a l a nd s e e m s t o r a i s e no m o r e tha n a poss i bi l i t y that he wil l be subj ected t o the s am e acti on aga i n. M r . Lon g m ust show the exi stence of an im m edi at e gover nm ent al acti on or pol i cy that has adver sely af f ected and cont i nu es t o af f ect a pr ese nt i nt er est . Th e r ecor d o n ap pe al r eveal s t hat M r . Lon g had n um er ous m edi cal ap po i nt m ent s tha t

wer e c anc el l ed bythe VA M C i n 1994

. H owev er , ther e i s no ev i de nce i n the
r ecor d and M r . Lon g does n ot as ser t that he i s c ur r entl y exper i enci ng schedul i ng pr obl em s a t a V A M C f

or his m edi cal car e. A ccor di ngly , M r . Lon g has not m et the cr i t er i a f

or this m at

t er t o b e c o n sid ere d an ex ce ption t o th e m o o t n es s d o ctri n e. U nd er 38 C

. F. R

. § 17

. 49, M r . Lon g i s ent i tl ed t o pr ioritysc heduli ng of m edi cal
a p p o in tm e n ts a n d th e re is n o lo n g e r a p re s e n t c o n tro v e rs y b e fo re th e C o u rt. U po n co n sid era t ion o f t h e fo reg o in g , it

is
O R D E R E D th at t

h e a pp ea l is D IS M IS S E D as m o o t .4

DA T E D: A p r i l 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 P E R C U R I A M.
KRAMER, Chief Judge , concur ring : Iconcur

in the dismiss al of the a

ppellant' s appea l as to t he Au gus t 27 , 2 00 1, B oa rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls ( B oa

rd ) d e c isi on
. I n ess ence, the a pp e lla nt, thr ou g h h is 1 99 9 a

pp e a l to the B oa

rd , r e qu e ste d th at th e B oa rd pr ov ide e nti tle me nt t o p ri or ity schedulingof his medical a ppointments in accorda

nce w it h t hen-e x tant 38 C.F.R. § 17.99 (1998) pa rt ia lly in l ig ht o f VA' s p ur

po rt e d c anc e llatio n o f s e ve ra l of his sc he du le d me dic a l a

pp ointme nts in 1994 and 1998. SeeRe c or d ( R.) at 24 -2 5 ( Oc tob e r 199 4 lette r f ro m V A M e dic a l Ce nte r ( VA MC) Direc tor in which she r esponded to a ppellant' s contention that he was entitled to priority scheduling and she note d VAMC' s canc ellation of several of his medical appointments that had been sche duled fo r d ate s b e tw e e n M arc h a nd Se pte mb er 19 94 ), 29- 30 (M ay 19 98 le tte r f

ro m V AM C D ir e c tor

in which Dire ctor a ddresse d appellant' s entitlement to pr iority scheduling ), 34 (De cembe r 1998 letter fr o mVA M C th atad dre s s ed , i n t er al i a, ap p el l an t 's p ri o ri ty -s ch edu l i n g co n c e rn s ), 5 8 (ap p el l an t 's September 1999 Substantive Appe al), 65 (a ppellant' s November 1999 Substantive Appeal). B efor e the Court, the appe llant essentially cont en d s that, notwithstanding VA ' s September 2002 promulg ation of 38 C.F.R. § 17.49 (2003), the Boa rd err ed by not pr oviding him r elief as to his pre20 02 purp or

te d e nti tle me nt t o p ri or ity sc he du lin ga

nd that th e de nia l of e nti tle me nt to su c h re lie f i s justiciable bec ause it involves an a dminist rative de termination of VA. A ppellant' s Br ief (B r.) at 5-11; Appella n t 's R ep ly

Br . at 2-4. How ever , beca use the a ppellant does not alleg e cur rent difficulties with the sche duling of any particula r VA medical appointment or that he curr ently suffe rs harm a s a re sult of any purported canc ellation of scheduled VA medic al appointments, the appe llant has alleg ed no har

m that this C ourt could re medy

. See Aron so n v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 153, 156 (1994) (per c uriam orde r) ( beca use that cla imant had re ceive d relief as to his underlying c laim for service connec tion, his m otion for re cusal wa s moot because there was n o longe r a ha rm that the Court could reme dy

).
Acc ording ly , even a ssuming that the B oard' s jurisdiction e x tends to the issue of whe ther the appellant wa s entitled to priority schedulingof medica l appointments, i n t he abse nce of evidenc e su g g e sti ngthat he su ff

e rs any c ur

re nt harm that the Court

c ou ld r e me dy , d ism iss a l of his a pp e a l is appropr iate. See Simon v. Eastern Ky. W elfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38- 39 (1976) ( appellant who seek s re dres s i n Fed eral cou rtmu stdem on st rat e "a ctu al i nj ury redr ess abl e by

th e cou rt ";

" Ab se nt s uc h a

sh ow ing , e xer c ise of

its po we r by a [F ]ed e ra l c ourt wo uld be g ratui tou s .
. . ." ); see als o A e tna LifeIn s. Co. v . H awo rth , 300 U.S. 227, 241 (1937) (justiciable c ontroversy "must be a r e a l an d s u b s t an t i a l c o n tr o v e r s y admitting of s pecific re lief through a decre e of a c onclusive c ha ra c te r, a s dist inguis he d f

ro m an o pin ion

a dv isi ngwh at th e law w ou ld b e up on a hy po the tic a l st ate of fa c ts" (e mph asis a dd e d) ); Mokal v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 12, 14- 15 (1991). Thus, a bsent redr essible har

m, any opinion of t his Court constitutes an impermissible advisory opinion. See, e .g., W aterhouse v. Principi , 3 Vet.App. 473, 4 7 4 -7 6 (1992) ( Court will not adjudicate hy pothetical c la ims ); see also Haines v . Gober , 10 Vet.App. 446, 446-47 (1997) (per cu ri am o rd er ), aff' d, 154 F .3 d 1 29 8 ( F e d. Cir . 1 99 8) ; Lan dic ho v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 42, 49 ( 1994).