Court Opinion

ID: 9892060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 14:00:46.118263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:04.049889
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1863    Document: 38    Page: 1    Filed: 10/20/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                ALBERT F. CASTRO, JR.,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

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

                       2022-1863
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-5042, Chief Judge Margaret C.
 Bartley, Judge Amanda L. Meredith, Judge Joseph L.
 Falvey, Jr.
                 ______________________

                Decided: October 20, 2023
                 ______________________

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

     MEEN GEU OH, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di-
 vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
 DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA
 M. MCCARTHY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, DEREK SCADDEN, Office
Case: 22-1863    Document: 38     Page: 2    Filed: 10/20/2023

 2                                     CASTRO v. MCDONOUGH

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

 Before MOORE, Chief Judge, STOLL and CUNNINGHAM, Cir-
                      cuit Judges.
 MOORE, Chief Judge,
     Albert F. Castro, Jr. appeals a decision of the United
 States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims setting aside
 the Board of Veterans Appeals’ finding that a previous Oc-
 tober 2015 Board decision became final and otherwise af-
 firming the Board’s denial of an earlier effective date for
 the award of disability benefits. For the following reasons,
 we dismiss in part and affirm in part.
                        BACKGROUND
     Mr. Castro served honorably in the United States Navy
 from 1970 to 1971. In November 2011, Mr. Castro filed a
 claim for disability compensation for depression, which he
 later amended to include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
 (PTSD). 1 The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) re-
 gional office (RO) denied his claim and the Board upheld
 the denial in October 2015. On November 3, 2015, Mr. Cas-
 tro submitted a letter to the Board challenging its October
 2015 decision due to clear and unmistakable error (CUE).
 The Board simultaneously construed the November 2015
 letter as a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Re-
 vision based on CUE. The Motion for Reconsideration was
 denied on January 12, 2016, and the Motion for Revision
 was denied in January 2020.
     On January 23, 2016, Mr. Castro submitted another
 letter to the RO and the Veterans Court requesting “a

     1  This case involves a lengthy procedural history.
 We describe only the relevant events here.
Case: 22-1863    Document: 38     Page: 3    Filed: 10/20/2023

 CASTRO v. MCDONOUGH                                       3

 reopening and/or review” of his PTSD claim, attaching a
 note from his psychiatrist.
     On February 2, 2016, Mr. Castro submitted an online
 form again requesting that the VA reopen his claim, at-
 taching his January 2016 letter and the note from his psy-
 chiatrist. Ultimately, in February 2018, the RO issued a
 rating decision granting service connection for PTSD and
 assigning an effective date of February 2, 2016. Mr. Castro
 submitted a notice of disagreement, challenging the effec-
 tive date. Following more years of litigation, the Veterans
 Court issued a decision in October 2021 that in relevant
 part: (1) separated the issue of whether the October 2015
 Board decision was final into a new case before the Veter-
 ans Court, and (2) denied reconsideration of the February
 2, 2016 effective date for Mr. Castro’s benefits. Mr. Castro
 appeals.
                        DISCUSSION
     Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
 Court is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336
 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We may review “all relevant questions of
 law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory
 provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). Except with respect to
 constitutional issues, we “may not review (A) a challenge
 to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or
 regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38
 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
     On appeal, Mr. Castro raises two challenges to the Vet-
 erans Court’s October 2021 decision. First, he argues the
 Veterans Court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s
 January 2020 decision. Second, he argues the Veterans
 Court applied the incorrect version of 38 U.S.C. § 5110
 when reviewing the Board’s determination of the effective
 date.
Case: 22-1863    Document: 38      Page: 4    Filed: 10/20/2023

 4                                     CASTRO v. MCDONOUGH

                               I
     Mr. Castro argues that the Veterans Court lacked ju-
 risdiction to review the Board’s January 2020 decision. Ac-
 cording to Mr. Castro, the Board’s October 2015 decision
 was not final because his November 2015 letter or January
 2016 letter2 operated as a notice of appeal (NOA), and thus
 the Board could not issue its decision denying CUE.
 Whether the Board, and subsequently the Veterans Court,
 had jurisdiction to issue their respective decisions turns on
 whether the October 2015 Board decision was final.
     A decision of the Board is final if the veteran does not
 appeal the decision. 38 U.S.C § 7105(c). A veteran has 120
 days from the Board’s decision to file a notice of appeal. 38
 U.S.C. § 7266(a). According to the Veterans Court’s Rules,
 a notice of appeal filed by the veteran must (1) include the
 veteran’s name, address, and telephone number, and the
 claim file number; (2) reasonably identify the Board deci-
 sion being appealed; and (3) be “capable of being reasona-
 bly construed, on its face or from the surrounding
 circumstances, as expressing an intent to seek [Veterans]
 Court review of that decision.” U.S. Vet. App. R. 3(c). This
 Court has held that correspondence will be liberally con-
 strued in determining if it is a notice of appeal. Durr v.
 Nicholson, 400 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Pro se
 pleadings are also to be liberally construed. Id.
     It is undisputed that Mr. Castro filed the November
 2015 and January 2016 letters during the 120-day window
 for appeal of the Board’s October 2015 decision. See

     2    Mr. Castro’s briefing focuses on the November 2015
 letter, Appellant’s Opening Br. at 9–12, whereas at oral ar-
 gument counsel for Mr. Castro focused on the January
 2016 letter, Oral Arg. at 6:39–7:41, available at
 https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22
 -1863_10032023.mp3.
Case: 22-1863     Document: 38      Page: 5     Filed: 10/20/2023

 CASTRO v. MCDONOUGH                                           5

 Appellee’s Response Br. at 5. It is also undisputed that at
 least one, if not both, of the letters met all of the mechanical
 requirements of a notice of appeal. See Oral Arg. at 18:51-
 59 (Appellee noting the mechanical requirements for a no-
 tice of appeal have been met). The only remaining question
 is whether either letter could be “reasonably construed, on
 its face or from the surrounding circumstances, as express-
 ing an intent to seek [Veterans] Court review of that deci-
 sion.” U.S. Vet. App. R. 3(c)(2); see also Oral Arg. at 19:00–
 28. We do not see how the November 2015 letter or the
 January 2016 letter could be construed as anything other
 than a notice of appeal.
      Mr. Castro’s November 2015 letter, which was sent to
 and received by the Board, 3 stated that the October 2015
 decision contained “clear and unmistakable error.” J.A.
 87–88. Relevant to Mr. Castro’s argument, the Board in-
 terpreted Mr. Castro’s November 2015 letter as a Motion
 for Revision based on CUE (which was denied). J.A. 89. A
 motion for revision based on CUE is granted only upon a
 showing of clear and unmistakable error in a final decision.
 38 C.F.R. § 20.1400. But given the well-settled principles
 of liberally construing notices of appeal and pro se filings,
 it is perplexing that the Board would not interpret the let-
 ter challenging the Board’s decision, filed within the time
 period for a notice of appeal, written pro se by a veteran
 with PTSD, as anything other than a notice of appeal. This
 is especially true considering the alternative is interpret-
 ing the correspondence as a request to both finalize the Oc-
 tober 2015 decision, and then review it with a much more

     3   While notices of appeal should be filed with the
 Veterans Court, we have held that even a notice of appeal
 misfiled with the Board, during the statutory period for fil-
 ing a notice of appeal, could trigger equitable tolling of a
 decision’s finality. Brandenburg v. Principi, 371 F.3d 1362,
 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Case: 22-1863    Document: 38      Page: 6    Filed: 10/20/2023

 6                                     CASTRO v. MCDONOUGH

 exacting standard of review. While this pro se veteran may
 have used the language clear and unmistakable error in his
 November 2015 letter, it is simply not feasible that he
 would prefer to have the October 2015 decision, of which he
 was complaining, reviewed under a more difficult CUE
 standard rather than considered as an appeal. In short, he
 used the wrong legal jargon – but that his clearly expressed
 intent was to seek review of (appeal) the October 2015 de-
 cision cannot be denied.
      In January 2016, after receiving the Board’s denial of
 reconsideration based on his November 2015 letter, Mr.
 Castro sent another letter challenging the October 2015 de-
 cision. The January 2016 letter was sent to both the RO
 and the Veterans Court. J.A. 95, 99. In this letter, Mr.
 Castro requested “a reopening and/or review” of the Octo-
 ber 2015 decision. J.A. 96. Mr. Castro also included notes
 from his psychiatrist, Dr. Burch, regarding his PTSD and
 the likely causal link between the PTSD and Mr. Castro’s
 military service. J.A. 98. The Veterans Court is permitted
 to receive such evidence on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b)
 (evidence “will be considered as having been filed in con-
 nection with the claim which was pending at the beginning
 of the appeal period” if received prior to the expiration of
 the appeal period). Despite these circumstances, the Vet-
 erans Court did not docket an appeal, but instead for-
 warded the letter to the Board. J.A. 100. As with the
 November 2015 letter, it seems contrary to logic that Mr.
 Castro’s intent with the January 2016 letter, mailed to the
 Veterans Court within the allowable time period for filing
 a notice of appeal, asking for review of his case, could not
 reasonably be construed as seeking the Veterans Court’s
 review of his case.
     Unfortunately, we cannot make the determination in
 the first instance as to whether the November 2015 or Jan-
 uary 2016 letters constitute a notice of appeal to the Veter-
 ans Court. The Veterans Court’s October 2021 decision set
 aside the Board’s finding that the Board’s October 2015
Case: 22-1863     Document: 38      Page: 7   Filed: 10/20/2023

 CASTRO v. MCDONOUGH                                         7

 decision was final and opened a separate docket (No. 21-
 6507) to adjudicate that exact question. J.A. 12. Given
 there is not a final decision by the Veterans Court, we lack
 jurisdiction to review. Accordingly, we dismiss Mr. Cas-
 tro’s appeal with respect to the finality of the Board’s Octo-
 ber 2015 decision. But given the clarity of the issues and
 the facts presented, we expect the Veterans Court to re-
 solve this matter forthwith, after all it goes back to a 2011
 filing.
                               II
      Mr. Castro also argues the Veterans Court applied the
 incorrect version of 38 U.S.C. § 5110 in its October 2021
 decision. Specifically, Mr. Castro contends the Veterans
 Court applied the pre-AMA 4 version of the statute in re-
 viewing the effective filing date and should have applied
 the post-AMA version because he opted into the AMA and
 continuously pursued his claim since 2011. We have juris-
 diction to review this question of law. See Forshey v. Prin-
 cipi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc).
 However, we decline as a prudential matter to address this
 question because it was forfeited. See Morgan v. Principi,
 327 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This question was
 neither presented to nor considered by the Veterans Court.
 Indeed, Mr. Castro expressly relied on the pre-AMA ver-
 sion of the statute in his briefing before the Veterans Court.
 See J.A. 205. We therefore affirm the Veterans Court’s de-
 cision with respect to this issue.
                         CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that we do not
 have jurisdiction to decide whether Mr. Castro’s November
 2015 or January 2016 letters constituted a notice of appeal
 such that the Board’s October 2015 decision did not become

     4   The Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) was en-
 acted in 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-55, 131 Stat. 1105 (2017).
Case: 22-1863    Document: 38      Page: 8   Filed: 10/20/2023

 8                                     CASTRO v. MCDONOUGH

 final. We also conclude Mr. Castro forfeited his argument
 with respect to whether the Veterans Court applied the cor-
 rect version of 38 U.S.C. § 5110. Accordingly, we dismiss
 in part and affirm in part.
     DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART
                           COSTS
 No costs.