Githens v. SHINSEKI, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8507

Githens-Bellas served in the U.S. Army from 1980–1983 with knee and wrist injuries and later an upper-arm injury; the RO rated service-connected disabilities at 70% and denied TDIU in 1996.
The RO treated two knee injuries as separate disabilities rather than as one, applying §4.16(b) instead of the §4.16(a) schedular analysis.
In 1997, she sought further review; the RO denied reopening of her TDIU claim.
In 2004–2008 she challenged the 1996 decision as having CUE and sought retroactive TDIU; the Secretary conceded the RO’s miscalculation but argued it did not amount to CUE.
The Veterans Court affirmed the Board's denial of TDIU and held no CUE; the Secretary conceded the error but argued it was harmless, and the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on interpretation of §4.16(a).
The court’s dismissal rests on whether the Veterans Court’s decision involved an interpretation of §4.16(a); it held the issue did not, and thus dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Veterans Court misinterpreted §4.16(a) in denying CUE.	Githens-Bellas argues the Veterans Court misstated §4.16(a) to allow non-service-connected disabilities to affect TDIU.	Shinseki/Secretary contends the Veterans Court did not interpret §4.16(a) and the CUE issue was not about statutory interpretation.	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; no interpretation issue decided.

Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc; CUE and duty-to-assist distinctions discussed)
Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc; interpretation and review framework for veterans claims)
Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (lack of jurisdiction for certain interpretation issues)
Pratt v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 269 (1992) (precedent on TDIU and service-connected disability requirement)