Court Opinion

ID: 9394426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 14:02:34.334397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:00.246222
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1104   Document: 39     Page: 1   Filed: 05/15/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

            ERNESTO A. GARCIAMEDINA,
                 Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

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

                       2022-1104
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 19-7947, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
 dith.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: May 15, 2023
                 ______________________

    KENNETH DOJAQUEZ, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka,
 KS, argued for claimant-appellant.

     AMANDA TANTUM, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented
 by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., REBECCA
 SARAH KRUSER, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; AMANDA
 BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, SAMANTHA ANN SYVERSON, Office
Case: 22-1104    Document: 39       Page: 2   Filed: 05/15/2023

 2                                GARCIAMEDINA   v. MCDONOUGH

 of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
 Affairs, Washington, DC.
                 ______________________

     Before HUGHES, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
     Ernesto Garciamedina appeals an interlocutory order
 of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacating and
 remanding a 2019 decision by the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
 peals. Because this non-final order does not fall into the
 limited class of orders that we will consider under Williams
 v. Principi, 275 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002), we dismiss.
                              I
     Mr. Garciamedina served in the United States Marine
 Corps from 1999 to 2003. In 2003, a VA regional office (RO)
 assigned him a 10 percent rating for left and right shoulder
 disabilities. The RO rated Mr. Garciamedina’s shoulder
 condition under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code (DC)
 5299-5203.
     In 2016, Mr. Garciamedina brought a claim of clear and
 unmistakable error (CUE) to revise the 2003 rating deci-
 sion. Mr. Garciamedina argued that the RO selected the
 wrong DC and that he should have been assigned instead
 a 20 percent disability rating for each shoulder under 38
 C.F.R. § 4.59 and DC 5201. The RO denied his CUE claim
 and he appealed to the Board.
     The Board issued a decision denying Mr. Garciame-
 dina’s CUE claim. The Board held that there was no CUE
 in the 2003 decision. Although the Board acknowledged §
 4.59, it stated—without citation or support—that “[p]rior
 to May 23, 2016, it was longstanding VA policy to interpret
 ‘the minimum compensable rating’ for a joint as a 10 per-
 cent rating, irrespective of the diagnostic code involved”
 and thus the RO in 2003 was “keeping with standard prac-
 tice at the time” when it assigned Mr. Garciamedina a 10
Case: 22-1104     Document: 39      Page: 3   Filed: 05/15/2023

 GARCIAMEDINA   v. MCDONOUGH                                 3

 percent rating. J.A. 42. The Board then stated that Sowers
 v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 472 (2016) resulted in a change
 in VA policy on May 23, 2016.
     Mr. Garciamedina then appealed to the Veterans
 Court. The Veterans Court “conclude[d] that the Board pro-
 vided inadequate reasons or bases for its decision.” J.A. 8.
 According to the Veterans Court, “the Board here did not
 provide any explanation for its pronouncement that VA
 policy changed as a result of Sowers . . . . Accordingly, the
 Court’s review of the Board’s decision is frustrated.” J.A. 8.
 The Veterans Court remanded the case to the Board. The
 Veterans Court said that Mr. Garciamedina was free to
 submit new arguments, including any raised in the appeal
 and specifically directed the Board to consider Mr. Garci-
 amedina’s arguments.
                               II
     We have “‘generally declined to review non-final orders
 of the Veterans Court.’” Williams v. Principi, 275 F.3d
 1361, 1364−65 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Adams v. Principi,
 256 F.3d 1318, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); see also Winn v.
 Brown, 110 F.3d 56, 57 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Consequently, re-
 mand orders are “ordinarily [] not appealable because they
 are not final.” Adams, 256 F.3d at 1320.
     Our decision in Williams provides a limited exception.
 We will depart from the strict rule of finality when a vet-
 eran establishes that: (1) the Veterans Court issued a clear
 and final decision of a legal issue that (a) is separate from
 the remand proceedings, (b) will directly govern the re-
 mand proceedings, or, (c) if reversed by this court, would
 render the remand proceedings unnecessary; (2) the reso-
 lution of the legal issue adversely affects the party seeking
 review; and (3) there is a substantial risk that the decision
 would not survive a remand, i.e., that the remand proceed-
 ing may moot the issue. Williams, 275 F.3d at 1364.
Case: 22-1104     Document: 39       Page: 4   Filed: 05/15/2023

 4                               GARCIAMEDINA   v. MCDONOUGH

                               III
     Mr. Garciamedina argues that we have jurisdiction to
 review this interlocutory remand order under Williams.
 Mr. Garciamedina posits that the remand decision serves
 as the Veterans Court’s final ruling that “it may not inter-
 pret the law unless or until the Board provides an explana-
 tion for its legal ruling.” Appellant’s Br. 12. We disagree.
 The remand decision before us does not satisfy any of the
 Williams conditions.
     The remand decision does not satisfy the first condition
 as there is no clear and final decision of a legal issue. Here,
 the Veterans Court did not even consider—let alone hold—
 whether it could review the Board’s decision without a
 proper explanation for the Board’s pronouncement that VA
 policy changed because of Sowers. The remand decision
 does not satisfy the second condition because the remand
 decision does not adversely affect Mr. Garciamedina. The
 remand decision does not satisfy the third condition be-
 cause there is not a substantial risk that the remand pro-
 ceedings will moot the issue.
                               IV
     For the foregoing reasons, the non-final remand order
 is not immediately appealable. Therefore, we dismiss the
 appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
                         DISMISSED
                             COSTS
 No costs.