Skaar v. McDonough, 48 F.4th 1323

In 1966 a B-52 accident near Palomares, Spain released plutonium; Victor Skaar, among ~1,400 service members, participated in cleanup and was monitored for radiation exposure.
Decades later Skaar was diagnosed with leukopenia and sought VA service-connection; initial Air Force dose estimates were low and the VA denied his claim; later the Air Force revised its methodology and substantially increased Skaar’s dose estimate.
The Board denied Skaar’s claim after considering the revised dose opinion; Skaar appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and moved for class certification to challenge the VA’s reliance on Air Force dose estimates under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(c).
The Veterans Court certified a class that included veterans who had not received final Board decisions and even some who had not filed claims, but excluded claimants whose appeal windows had expired; the court also declined to equitably toll the appeal period for expired/past claimants.
The Federal Circuit reviewed and held that the Veterans Court exceeded its jurisdiction by certifying a class containing members who lacked final Board decisions, vacated the class certification, and limited any merits relief to Skaar’s individual claim; it also upheld the Veterans Court’s denial of equitable tolling for expired claimants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Veterans Court may certify a class including members who have not received a final Board decision or not filed claims	Skaar: class certification is permissible to aggregate similar challenges to dose methodology; Monk supports class mechanisms	Secretary: § 7252 limits the Veterans Court to reviewing Board decisions; jurisdiction does not extend to non-Board claimants	Veterans Court exceeded jurisdiction; class must be limited to members with final Board decisions (present claimants)
Whether equitable tolling should revive expired appeals so expired/past claimants can be class members	Skaar: tolling warranted because VA’s historical adjudication practices prevented timely appeals	Secretary: claimants failed to show due diligence and extraordinary circumstance required for tolling	Equitable tolling properly denied; claimants did not show due diligence/extraordinary circumstance; expired/past claimants excluded
Whether district-court-style aggregation precedents (e.g., future-claimant classes) apply to Veterans Court	Skaar: district courts routinely include future claimants; Veterans Court should similarly include present-future/future-future members	Secretary: district courts have supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367; Veterans Court lacks comparable statutory grant	District-court precedents inapplicable; Veterans Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction and cannot certify members absent Board decisions

Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (acknowledging Veterans Court authority to create class/aggregation mechanisms)
Toomer v. McDonald, 783 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstance and due diligence)
Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (1986) (tolling/exhaustion principles in certain agency contexts)
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975) (court lacked jurisdiction over unnamed class members absent statutory grant)
Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) (class relief consistent only where court has jurisdiction over each class member)
In re Wick, 40 F.3d 367 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Veterans Court jurisdictional limits and review scope)
Burris v. Wilkie, 888 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Veterans Court may not expand its statutory jurisdiction by invoking equity)
Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) (§ 7252 as the Veterans Court’s sole source of jurisdiction)
Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (presentation of a benefits claim and a decision are jurisdictional prerequisites)