Toole v. Shulkin
17-2316
| Fed. Cir. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- Cathy L. Toole appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims from a 2015 Board decision that denied her claim for accrued benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1110 based on her late husband’s service.
- On appeal to the Veterans Court, Toole only raised claims for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 and dependents’ educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. § 3510.
- Those DIC and education-assistance issues were the subject of a separate 2007 Board decision that was not the subject of the 2015 appeal.
- The Veterans Court dismissed Toole’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because she did not present any arguments challenging the 2015 Board decision that was before the court.
- Toole asserted constitutional and other claims, but the court treated the constitutional arguments as "constitutional in name only" and found they did not confer jurisdiction.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and affirmed the Veterans Court’s dismissal, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to review issues originating from the 2007 Board decision or to award damages absent a valid statutory or regulatory challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Veterans Court have jurisdiction to review claims not arising from the 2015 Board decision? | Toole pursued DIC and educational-assistance claims in her Veterans Court filing. | The Veterans Court's jurisdiction is limited to the Board decision being appealed (the 2015 decision). | Held: No — jurisdiction is limited to the 2015 Board decision; claims tied to the 2007 decision are outside its jurisdiction. |
| Do Toole’s filings meaningfully challenge the 2015 Board decision? | Toole contends her filings raise relevant issues. | The filings do not assert error in the 2015 decision on appeal. | Held: No — Toole raised no arguments or assertions of error regarding the 2015 Board decision. |
| Do labeled "constitutional" claims confer appellate jurisdiction? | Toole labels some arguments as constitutional. | Labels alone do not create jurisdiction where none otherwise exists. | Held: No — the constitutional arguments are "in name only" and do not confer jurisdiction. |
| Can the court grant damages or other relief absent a statutory or regulatory challenge? | Toole seeks damages and other relief. | The Federal Circuit lacks authority absent a challenge to statute/regulation or its validity/interpretation. | Held: No — court lacks authority to consider damages or other relief without a valid statutory/regulatory challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodman v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (scope of appellate review from Veterans Court)
- Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (de novo review of Veterans Court jurisdiction)
- Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (look to true nature of action to determine jurisdiction)
- Ledford v. West, 136 F.3d 776 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Veterans Court jurisdiction is defined by the Board decision appealed)
- Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (constitutional labels do not automatically confer jurisdiction)
- Toole v. Shinseki, [citation="364 F. App'x 627"] (Fed. Cir. 2010) (prior dismissal of appeal from 2007 Board decision)