Court Opinion

ID: 9948910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 15:01:11.351791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:19.769429
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1869   Document: 40     Page: 1   Filed: 03/08/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   HERBIE D. VEST,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

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

                       2022-1869
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 21-792, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: March 8, 2024
                 ______________________

      AMANDA SUNDAY, GloverLuck, LLP, Dallas, TX, argued
 for claimant-appellant. Also represented by ADAM R. LUCK.

     DANIEL FALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented
 by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Y. KEN LEE, Office of
 General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
 Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 22-1869    Document: 40      Page: 2    Filed: 03/08/2024

 2                                        VEST v. MCDONOUGH

                  ______________________

     Before DYK, CLEVENGER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge
      Herbie D. Vest (“Vest”) appeals from the final decision
 of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
 (“Veterans Court”) which dismissed Vest’s appeal for lack
 of jurisdiction.
                       I. BACKGROUND
     Vest served on active duty in the United States Army
 from October 6, 1966, to May 24, 1971. J.A. 11. In May
 1971, Vest filed a claim for service connection for hearing
 loss and “ringing in the ears.” J.A. 12. In a September 15,
 1971, rating decision, the Veterans Administration Re-
 gional Office (“RO”) granted service connection for bilateral
 hearing loss and tinnitus, each rated at 0%. J.A. 14–15.
 Subsequently, in a December 17, 1971, decision, the RO de-
 nied a request for an increased rating for bilateral hearing
 loss. J.A. 16.
     Vest sent a letter which was received by the RO on
 March 10, 1972, (“March 1972 Letter”) which said that “[i]n
 your letter, dated December 17, 1971 you stated that my
 bilateral hearing loss continues to 0% . . . . I believe that
 there may be an error.” J.A. 17. His letter also said that
 he had “constant ringing in [his] ears.” J.A. 17.
     On January 28, 2016, Vest filed a separate claim for
 compensation for Meniere’s disease and “ears-ringing.”
 J.A. 23, 25. In a July 14, 2016, rating decision, the RO
 granted service connection for Vest’s “[M]eniere[’]s disease
 with bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and vertigo (claimed
 as ears ringing and dizziness),” with a 60% disability rating
 effective December 10, 2015. J.A. 36–37, 109. Vest dis-
 puted this rating, and on November 23, 2018, the RO con-
 tinued the rating at 60% for Meniere’s disease. J.A. 53–54.
Case: 22-1869    Document: 40     Page: 3    Filed: 03/08/2024

 VEST v. MCDONOUGH                                         3

     On April 8, 2019, Vest sent a letter to the Department
 of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) which argued that his March
 1972 Letter was “disagreeing with the December 17, 1971
 Decision and expressing his belief that it contained an er-
 ror.” J.A. 61. Therefore, Vest argued that the March 1972
 Letter “to the VA was a NOD under the applicable regula-
 tions at the time, as it was a written communication ex-
 pressing dissatisfaction and disagreement with the VA’s
 noncompensable evaluation for his tinnitus.” J.A. 61. Vest
 further argued that “[b]ecause [the] VA did not address Mr.
 Vest’s NOD, it remains pending.” J.A. 61. On February 4,
 2020, the RO responded that Vest’s letter “was not ac-
 cepted as a Notice of Disagreement since you did not state
 that you were disagreeing with our decision.” J.A. 63.
    In response, on June 4, 2020, Vest filed an NOD with a
 VA Form 10182 (“2020 NOD”) limited to “[w]hether the
 Veteran’s March 10, 1972 letter constituted a NOD and
 whether the NOD remains pending.” J.A. 65.
     On appeal, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”)
 found that the March 1972 Letter “expressed dissatisfac-
 tion only with a December 1971 administrative decision,
 which denied an increased rating for a hearing loss disabil-
 ity but did not adjudicate entitlement to an increased rat-
 ing for tinnitus.” J.A. 66. The Board further explained that
 “although the Veteran discussed tinnitus in his letter and
 it was received within one year of the September 1971 rat-
 ing decision, there was no expressed disagreement or dis-
 satisfaction of a decision by the [RO] regarding tinnitus,
 and the NOD is limited to entitlement to an increased rat-
 ing for a hearing loss disability.” J.A. 69.
      Vest’s appeal of the Board’s October 13, 2020, decision
 did not challenge the Board’s decision that he never had
 filed an NOD with his May 1971 tinnitus claim. Instead,
 Vest limited his appeal to whether his tinnitus claim was
 still pending because he did not receive a notice of appeal
Case: 22-1869     Document: 40     Page: 4    Filed: 03/08/2024

 4                                        VEST v. MCDONOUGH

 rights with respect to the September 1971 rating decision.
 J.A. 79–81, 101–105.
      The Veterans Court dismissed the appeal, holding that
 it did not have “jurisdiction to address th[e] question of de-
 fective notice.” Vest v. McDonough, No. 21-0792, 2022 WL
 538201, at *4 (Vet. App. Feb. 23, 2022). The Veterans
 Court noted that Vest did not argue that “he had submitted
 an NOD with the September 1971 rating decision concern-
 ing tinnitus, and he does not challenge the Board’s deter-
 minations that the March 1972 NOD related only to the
 December 1971 decision denying an increased rating for
 hearing loss and that the March 1972 filing was not an
 NOD with the September 1971 rating decision concerning
 tinnitus.” Id. Therefore, the Veterans Court held that Vest
 “abandoned the issue [of] whether the March 1972 filing
 was an NOD with a VA initial decision concerning tinni-
 tus.” Id.
     The Veterans Court entered judgment on March 17,
 2022. Vest timely appealed the Veterans Court’s decision
 to this court, and we have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C.
 § 7292(a).
                        II. DISCUSSION
     This court has jurisdiction to review “the decision [of
 the Veterans Court] with respect to the validity of a deci-
 sion of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any stat-
 ute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other
 than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied
 on by the [Veterans] Court in making the decision.” 38
 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Whether the Veterans Court has juris-
 diction is a matter of statutory interpretation that this
 court reviews de novo. Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354,
 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“We review legal issues, including
 whether the Veterans Court properly declined to assert ju-
 risdiction . . . without deference.”).
Case: 22-1869     Document: 40     Page: 5    Filed: 03/08/2024

 VEST v. MCDONOUGH                                           5

     With respect to RO decisions subject to review by the
 Board, “[a]ppellate review shall be initiated by the filing of
 a[n NOD].” 38 U.S.C. § 7105(a); Ledford v. West, 136 F.3d
 776, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“An NOD is required to initiate
 the appellate review process . . . .”). “[NODs] shall be in
 writing, [and] shall identify the specific determination with
 which the claimant disagrees . . . .”             38 U.S.C.
 § 7105(b)(2)(A).
     An NOD is the instrument that declares a veteran’s in-
 tention to seek appellate review of a decision and initiates
 the Board’s jurisdiction over a veteran’s claim. See Hamil-
 ton v. Brown, 39 F.3d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“The
 [VA] . . . long utilized a document called the [NOD] as the
 vehicle by which a veteran, aggrieved by the initial deter-
 mination of a [VA] office, would announce the intention to
 administratively appeal that initial determination.”); Cox
 v. West, 149 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[T]here
 [was] no jurisdiction-conferring NOD . . . that would have
 supplied the Board with jurisdiction over [the] claim”);
 Buckley v. West, 12 Vet. App. 76, 82 (1998) (“Just as the
 [Veterans] Court’s jurisdiction is dependent on a jurisdic-
 tion-conferring NOD, the Board’s jurisdiction, too, derives
 from a claimant’s NOD.”).
      The Veterans Court has jurisdiction to review decisions
 of the Board. 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a). A Board decision results
 from appellate review by the Board of agency action after
 the filing of a valid NOD. When, as in this case, it is estab-
 lished that a valid NOD has not been filed with respect to
 a veteran’s claim, and as a result the Board has not issued
 a decision concerning the claim, the Veterans Court lacks
 jurisdiction over the claim.
     Ledford clearly governs this appeal. In that case, the
 veteran initially was awarded a 100% disability rating
 based on individual unemployability. Ledford, 136 F.3d at
 777. Subsequently, that rating was terminated and
 changed to a schedular rating that was for a time reduced
Case: 22-1869    Document: 40     Page: 6    Filed: 03/08/2024

 6                                       VEST v. MCDONOUGH

 to 70% before being increased back to 100% as a result of
 two NODs filed by the veteran which contested the reduc-
 tion of the schedular rating. Id. The veteran later sought
 an earlier effective for his benefits on the ground that the
 termination of his individual unemployability benefits was
 unlawful. Id. at 778. The RO and the Board denied his
 earlier effective date claim, and the Veterans Court held
 that it lacked jurisdiction over the veteran’s appeal. Id.
 Because the veteran never filed an NOD contesting the va-
 lidity of termination of his individual unemployability ben-
 efits, and the Board never issued a decision concerning that
 termination, the Veterans Court lacked jurisdiction over
 the veteran’s claim. Id. at 779 (“In short, there was no
 Board decision for the [Veterans Court] to review concern-
 ing the propriety of the termination, and thus the court had
 no jurisdiction to consider that issue.”). The decision in
 Ledford held that jurisdiction in the Veterans Court was
 additionally lacking because the veteran could point to no
 NOD expressing disagreement with the conversion of his
 unemployability rating to a schedular one. Id. (“An NOD
 is required to initiate the appellate review process, 38
 U.S.C. § 7105(a) . . . .”).
     In this case, Vest acknowledges that the jurisdiction of
 the Veterans Court depends on a valid NOD and a decision
 by the Board on the matter in question. Appellant’s Open-
 ing Br. at 16.
     Despite this acknowledgement and the absence of any
 challenge to the Board’s holding that no NOD exists as to
 his 1971 tinnitus claim, Vest argues that the Veterans
 Court should have exercised its discretion to consider his
 claim that the 1971 tinnitus claim remains open because of
 a failure of the agency to provide him with notice of appeal
 rights at the time that claim was initially denied. He also
 claims a basis for jurisdiction in the Veterans Court under
 AG v. Peake, 536 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008), a case in which
 this court vacated a decision of the Veterans Court and re-
 manded the issue of whether the veteran’s claim remained
Case: 22-1869     Document: 40      Page: 7    Filed: 03/08/2024

 VEST v. MCDONOUGH                                            7

 open due to the failure of the agency to give notice of appeal
 rights. Id. at 1310–11.
      Vest is correct in arguing that the Veterans Court has
 a measure of discretion to consider arguments raised to it
 for the first time, (see, e.g., Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 1370,
 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000)) such as his argument that he was
 denied appeal rights by the RO when his tinnitus claim was
 rejected long ago. But such discretion can only be exercised
 when the Veterans Court has jurisdiction over a veteran’s
 underlying claim. Here, Vest abandoned his opportunity
 to show that his March 1972 Letter was a sufficient NOD
 for his tinnitus claim and failed to show a Board decision
 on his claim that the Veterans Court could review, thus un-
 dermining the jurisdiction for his appeal to the Veterans
 Court. And on appeal, Vest argues that his April 2019 let-
 ter was always about obtaining an earlier effective date for
 his tinnitus claim and seems to suggest that his 2020 NOD
 constituted an NOD for his tinnitus claim. Appellant’s
 Opening Br. at 10; Oral Arg. at 7:46–8:40. Both the April
 2019 letter and the 2020 NOD, however, were limited to
 the issue of whether Vest’s March 1972 letter constituted
 an NOD and did not, in themselves, express disagreement
 with his tinnitus claim. AG v. Peake did provide relief
 where the agency had failed to provide notice of appeal
 rights to the veteran, but in that case the veteran had filed
 an NOD vesting the appellate process with jurisdiction
 over the subject matter of his claim. Vest’s lack of an NOD
 over his 1971 tinnitus claim distinguishes him from the
 veteran in AG v. Peake. Even if the failure to provide notice
 of appeal rights extended the time for filing an NOD, the
 fact is that Vest never filed an NOD.
     After some discussion at oral argument about the pre-
 cise contours of the government’s opposition to Vest’s ap-
 peal here, the government argues that the absence of an
 NOD on Vest’s 1971 tinnitus claim and the absence of any
 decision by the Board on that matter deprive the Veterans
 Court of jurisdiction over this appeal. Oral Arg. at 24:06–
Case: 22-1869    Document: 40     Page: 8   Filed: 03/08/2024

 8                                      VEST v. MCDONOUGH

 24:22. Vest did not object to the refinement of the govern-
 ment’s opposition at oral argument. We agree with the gov-
 ernment that absence of an NOD on the 1971 tinnitus
 claim and the attendant lack of any decision by the Board
 on that claim defeat jurisdiction in the Veterans Court.
                      III. CONCLUSION
     After full review of the record and Vest’s arguments,
 we affirm the dismissal of the appeal by the Veterans Court
 because of lack of jurisdiction.
                       AFFIRMED
 No costs.