Tootle v. Shulkin
707 F. App'x 709
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Samuel E. Tootle II sought VA disability compensation; after an adverse regional office decision he filed a notice of disagreement and later submitted an appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.
- The VA regional office returned his substantive appeal as untimely on May 31, 2016, stating he had not perfected the appeal within the required statutory deadlines.
- Tootle filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims asserting there was a May 31, 2016 Board decision; the Secretary replied the Board had issued no such final decision.
- The Veterans Court dismissed Tootle’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there was no final Board decision from which to appeal, and denied reconsideration.
- Tootle appealed to this court, raising factual claims about counsel abandonment, VA procedural failures, and a due-process/constitutional claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court has jurisdiction to review Veterans Court dismissal for lack of final Board decision | Tootle contends the Veterans Court erred in dismissing because a May 31, 2016 decision existed and raises related factual and due-process claims | Secretary and Veterans Court assert no final Board decision exists; jurisdiction to review factual determinations or law-as-applied is statutorily barred | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: this court cannot review the Veterans Court’s factual determination that no final Board decision exists |
| Whether factual complaints (counsel abandonment, VA procedural errors) permit review | Tootle argues those factual errors justify review or relief | Secretary contends these are factual issues the court cannot review under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) | Court lacks jurisdiction to address these factual claims |
| Whether Tootle’s due-process/constitutional label confers jurisdiction | Tootle brandishes a due-process claim to invoke constitutional review | Secretary and precedent say a constitutional claim in name only does not create jurisdiction when the underlying issues are factual | Court finds the due-process claim “constitutional in name only” and declines jurisdiction |
| Whether any other arguments overcome statutory jurisdictional limits | Tootle raises additional arguments on appeal | Secretary maintains statutory limits on appellate review remain controlling | Court finds remaining arguments unpersuasive and dismisses the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (describing statutory limits on this court’s jurisdiction over Veterans Court decisions)
- Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that labeling a claim constitutional does not confer jurisdiction when it is factual in substance)