Court Opinion

ID: 9958213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 15:02:22.61091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:05.179859
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2227   Document: 43     Page: 1   Filed: 04/08/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                 WILLIAM D. COWAN,
                  Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

       DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
              VETERANS AFFAIRS,
               Respondent-Appellee
              ______________________

                       2022-2227
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-6227, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
 Jr, Judge Joseph L. Toth, Judge Michael P. Allen.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: April 8, 2024
                 ______________________

    KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Law Offices of Carpenter
 Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.

     ERIC P. BRUSKIN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented
 by SOSUN BAE, BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE
 HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN,
Case: 22-2227    Document: 43      Page: 2    Filed: 04/08/2024

 2                                      COWAN v. MCDONOUGH

 ANDREW J. STEINBERG, Office of General Counsel, United
 States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
                ______________________

      Before DYK, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
 REYNA, Circuit Judge.
      William D. Cowan appeals a decision of the United
 States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
 Court”), which remanded in part Mr. Cowan’s case to the
 Board of Veterans’ Appeals for further consideration. See
 Cowan v. McDonough, 35 Vet. App. 232, 249 (2022). We
 generally decline to review a decision by the Veterans
 Court that remands a case because such a decision is not a
 final judgment. Williams v. Principi, 275 F.3d 1361, 1364
 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We deviate from this rule when the deci-
 sion at issue meets three narrow requirements. Id. The
 first requirement is a “clear and final decision [from the
 Veterans Court] of a legal issue that [] is separate from the
 remand proceedings.” Id. (internal footnote omitted).
 Here, Mr. Cowan appeals the portion of the Veterans
 Court’s decision concerning the sufficiency of notice to a
 veteran required under 38 U.S.C. § 5104. Appellant Br.
 14–17. However, the Veterans Court remanded to the
 Board to further consider whether the Department of Vet-
 erans Affairs provided sufficient notice to Mr. Cowan under
 this statute. Cowan, 35 Vet. App. at 244, 249. Thus, be-
 cause the merits of Mr. Cowan’s appeal before this court
 are intertwined with the issue currently pending on re-
 mand before the Board, Mr. Cowan fails to meet the first
 requirement under Williams. Mr. Cowan’s case also fails
 to meet the third requirement of Williams, that there is a
 substantial risk that the Veterans Court’s decision would
 not survive a remand, i.e., that the remand proceeding may
 moot the issue. Williams, 275 F.3d at 1364. The same is-
 sue will be presented after the remand if Mr. Cowan is un-
 successful. The Veterans Court’s decision is thus not
Case: 22-2227   Document: 43      Page: 3   Filed: 04/08/2024

 COWAN v. MCDONOUGH                                       3

 sufficiently final for purposes of our review. We dismiss
 the appeal.
                      DISMISSED
                          COSTS
 No costs.