Opinion ID: 4557214
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenges to the Veterans Court’s Decision

Text: First, Mr. Payne challenges the Board’s determination that Mr. Payne was not entitled to a higher initial disability rating. The Veterans Court correctly characterized Mr. Payne’s challenge as going to the sufficiency of a medical opinion, which is a finding of fact, over which we lack jurisdiction to review. J.A. 17. See Prinkey v. Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he sufficiency of a medical opinion is a matter beyond our jurisdictional reach, because the underlying question is one of fact.”). Case: 20-1459 Document: 31 Page: 5 Filed: 08/20/2020 PAYNE v. WILKIE 5 Similarly, Mr. Payne argues that the Veterans Court erred when it determined that Mr. Payne failed to demonstrate that errors by the Board were prejudicial. Determination of prejudice constitutes case-specific applications of judgment, based on the examination of the record. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 407–10 (2009). Because this determination involves the application of law to fact, we lack jurisdiction to review these conclusions. Mr. Payne also challenges the Veterans Court’s reversal and remand of portions of the Board’s decision on grounds that those matters are still pending before the Board. This court has held that its jurisdiction generally does not extend to determinations that are still pending before the Veterans Court or the Board because they lack finality. See Joyce v. Nicholson, 443 F.3d 845, 849 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Williams, 275 F.3d at 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). While this court in Williams set out a narrow exception to that rule, as set forth above, we do not find that such an exception applies here. See Williams, 275 F.3d at 1364. Because we find no reason to depart from the rule of finality in this case, we dismiss Mr. Payne’s challenge to issues that remain pending before the Board. See id. at 1363. Finally, we also lack jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s ruling that Mr. Payne abandoned the remaining issues for failure to raise them in his opening brief. See Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1362–64 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction over the Veterans Court’s ruling that an issue is abandoned).