Bell v. Shulkin
684 F. App'x 967
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- William A. Bell, a veteran, sought service connection for a back condition that he says began in 1973.
- A VA regional office denied his claim; Bell appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board).
- On February 29, 2016 the Board issued a remand ordering the RO to obtain and evaluate additional medical records and to afford Bell expeditious treatment on remand.
- Bell filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) challenging the Board’s remand as interfering with evidence production.
- The Veterans Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because a Board remand is not a final decision appealable under 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a); the Veterans Court had also stayed proceedings and accepted a VA motion related to the record deadline.
- Bell appealed to the Federal Circuit, which considered only questions of law (statutory interpretation) arising from the Veterans Court’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Veterans Court had jurisdiction to review the Board’s remand order | Bell argued the Board’s remand interfered with evidence production and should be reviewable | VA and Veterans Court argued remand orders are nonfinal and not reviewable under § 7252(a) | Held: No jurisdiction; Board remand is not a final decision under § 7252(a) |
| Whether the Veterans Court improperly allowed the VA to stay proceedings | Bell argued the VA should not have been permitted to stay judicial review of its activities | VA relied on Veterans Court rules allowing parties to move for stays in the interest of judicial efficiency | Held: The VA, as a party, could move to stay; Veterans Court acted within its rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. Shinseki, 682 F.3d 988 (Fed. Cir.) (scope of Federal Circuit review of Veterans Court)
- Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir.) (limits on reviewing factual determinations and application of law to facts)
- McGee v. Peake, 511 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- Howard v. Gober, 220 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.) (jurisdiction of Veterans Court tied to the Board’s decision)
- Ledford v. West, 136 F.3d 776 (Fed. Cir.) (standards for reviewing Veterans Court legal conclusions)
- Kirkpatrick v. Nicholson, 417 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir.) (Board remand orders are nonfinal and not subject to Veterans Court substantive review)
- Checo v. Shinseki, 748 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir.) (Veterans Court’s broad discretion to interpret and apply its rules)