Bean: The Federal Circuit explains the Veterans Court Jurisdiction Includes Issues Before the Board but Not Decided by the Board

Bean v. McDonough, Case Number 2022-1447, decided April 26, 2023 was a case before the Federal Circuit and concerned the Veterans Court’s jurisdiction.

The veteran submitted a claim for PTSD in 1997 and a VA examiner diagnosed other mental health conditions, but not PTSD.  The VA denied the claim and the veteran did not appeal.

In 2006, the veteran submitted an informal claim, seeking service connection for depression, anxiety disorder, and PTSD. The VA granted service connection for PTSD and assigned a 2006 effective date, the date of the application.  The veteran appealed the effective date.  At the same time, he argued he had an unadjudicated claim pending from 1997 because the claim for PTSD constituted a claim for the other diagnosed mental health conditions.

The Board denied.  It acknowledged the veteran had been diagnosed with major depression and generalized anxiety disorder in 1997, but stated the issue of an unadjudicated claim was not before it and Mr. Bean could file a motion for CUE in the alternative.

Following the Board’s advice, the veteran did not file an appeal to the CAVC, but filed a CUE motion.  The RO and Board then denied, and the veteran appealed to the CAVC.

An original single-judge decision was withdrawn after a motion for reconsideration by the Secretary.  The Court then denied based on lack of jurisdiction, determining the Board did not actually decide the issue of the unadjudicated claim, but only the issue of an earlier effective date.

The Federal Circuit reversed.  It held the Veterans Court erred in finding its jurisdiction was limited to affirmative determinations made by the Board.  The Federal Circuit explained the Veterans Court’s holding “is clearly contrary to the legal principle that when a claim is adequately presented to the Board but not addressed by the Board, the Board’s disposition of the appeal constitutes a decision of the Board on that claim that may be appealed to the Veterans Court.  The Veterans Court deemed its jurisdiction to be limited to the affirmative determinations made by the Board, and not to cover a Board disposition of an appeal that is challenged as improperly failing to address contentions clearly before the Board.” Id. at *17.  The Federal Circuit found the original single-judge opinion decided the issue properly and the CAVC should not have reversed itself on the Secretary’s motion.

The Federal Circuit then went further and helped the veteran by noting: “Having noted above some precedent on the issue, we add that, to the extent relevant, the Veterans Court should also take account of our precedent establishing that, when the RO has not adjudicated claims before it, there is not a final decision on those claims and “a CUE analysis [with its demanding standards] is not required.””  Id. at *19.

Decision by Judge Schall and joined by Judges Newman and Taranto.

To know more about whether Thomas Andrews can help you, please visit my website.