Court Opinion

ID: 9487756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:25:25.561523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:27.903915
License: Public Domain

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Futrell *1540raises questions of compliance and interpretation, in connection with the procedures followed by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, that are within our jurisdictional assignment. U.S.Code Title 38, § 7292 provides in part:
§ 7292(d)(1) ... The court shall hold unlawful and set aside any regulation or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied upon in the decision of the Court of Veterans Appeals that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit finds to be ... (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; ... (D) without observance of procedure required by law.
The Federal Circuit is required to review the decisions of the Court of Veterans Appeals with respect to issues based on the Constitution or the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation. The Court of Veterans Appeals in turn is required to assure that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals observes the requisite procedures. 38 U.S.C. § 7261.
Review of the issues presented by Mr. Futrell does not require this court to ascertain the correctness of any factual finding, or to apply statute or regulation to any fact. The facts that are recited at length by the panel majority are irrelevant to the issues before us. The issues on appeal were conscientiously delimited by Mr. Futrell to those within this court’s assignment.
Mr. Futrell complains that the Board overruled a critical factual finding in his favor, without giving him notice that this issue was being considered, and without affording him an opportunity to respond. He raises a serious question of procedural law and due process, unrelated to the correctness of any factual finding. It is within this court’s jurisdiction to determine whether there is merit to this matter of compliance with statutory and regulatory procedure.
Relevant is VA General Counsel Precedent Opinion No. 05-92, which is by law binding upon the Board, see 38 U.S.C. § 7104(e):
(e) The Board shall be bound in its decisions by the regulations of the Department, instructions of the Secretary, and the precedent opinions of the chief legal officer of the Department.
See also 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.5, 20.101(a). Opinion No. 05-92 states that the Board should advise a claimant, in advance, of the possibility that the Board will reverse a favorable finding made by a regional office in an appealed claim.
The provision of notice and an opportunity to respond are fundamental to procedural due process. As the Court of Veterans Appeals put it:
The entire thrust of the VA’s nonadver-sarial claims system is predicated upon a structure which provides for notice and an opportunity to be heard at virtually every step in the process.
Thurber v. Brown,, 5 Vet.App. 119, 123 (1993). The government argues that notice is not required, stating that because of the nature of the proceeding “no need arises to inform the appellant in advance that the BVA would review the issue.” The validity of this position, especially in light of Opinion No. 05-92, is within this court’s jurisdictional assignment, based on Constitution, statute, and regulation. Further, an agency must follow its own procedures. Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235, 94 S.Ct. 1055,1074, 39 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974) (‘Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon the ageney to follow their own procedures. This is so even where the internal procedures are possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be required.”); Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 539 — 40, 79 S.Ct. 968, 972-73, 3 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1959) (Secretary bound by procedures he promulgated, even though without such regulations he could have discharged petitioner summarily).
None of the procedural issues raised by Mr. Futrell was reviewed, or apparently deemed significant, by the Court of Veterans Appeals. It was as improper for the Court of Veterans Appeals as it is for us to conclude that if the facts appear to weigh against Mr. Futrell, it is unnecessary whether he received the mandated process. Resolution of this issue requires of this court no findings of fact or application of law to facts. However, whether Mr. Futrell received “the procedure required by law” is within our jurisdictional mandate. Thus I respectfully *1541dissent from the court’s dismissal of the issue as beyond our jurisdiction.