Remand Appeals from the Veterans Court
In Chavez v. McDonough, the Federal Circuit reviewed an order of the Veterans Court that remanded an action for further proceedings. Veterans Court remand orders normally are not immediately appealable. But these orders can be final and thus appealable when they (among other things) involve an argument that the Veterans Court lacked authority to order the remand.
The Veteran’s Appeal in Chavez
Simplifying a bit, Chavez involved a veteran’s disability claim. Although he had initially been given a disability rating of 100%, the Department of Veterans Affairs later changed that rating to 70%. The veteran challenged this reduction before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which upheld the reduction.
The veteran then sought further review in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, commonly known as the “Veterans Court.” The veteran contended that the Board relied on improper evidence when upholding the rating reduction. For relief, the veteran asked the Veterans Court to reinstate his 100% rating.
The Veterans Court agreed with the veteran on the merits. But rather than reverse the Board and render judgment (as the veteran had asked), the Veterans Court remanded for further explanation from the Board.
The veteran then sought review in the Federal Circuit. In that appeal, the government argued that the Federal Circuit lacked appellate jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction Over Veterans Court Remands
The Federal Circuit held that it had jurisdiction.
The Federal Circuit began with the general rule that it reviews only the final decisions of the Veterans Court. Remands are not normally not final—they involve further proceedings before the Board of Veterans Appeals. So Federal Circuit review normally must wait until after the further Board proceedings on remand and the subsequent appeal to the Veterans Court.
But the Federal Circuit has developed an exception to the general bar on remand appeals:
[W]e will depart from the strict rule of finality when the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has remanded for further proceedings only if three conditions are satisfied: (1) there must have been a clear and final decision of a legal issue that (a) is separate from the remand proceedings, (b) will directly govern the remand proceedings or, (c) if reversed by this court, would render the remand proceedings unnecessary; (2) the resolution of the legal issues must adversely affect the party seeking review; and, (3) there must be a substantial risk that the decision would not survive a remand, i.e., that the remand proceeding may moot the issue.
The appeal in Chavez satisfied all three requirements.
As to the first, the Federal Circuit concluded that the appeal involved a “clear and final decision on a legal issue”: whether the Veterans Court had authority to remand the action. The veteran did not argue only that the Board erred in its application of the law to the facts of his case when it remanded his case to the Board. He instead argued that the Veterans Court erred in not reversing the Board outright and entering judgment in his favor. That is, he argued that the Veterans Court was legally compelled to rule for him and thus legally barred from remanding the case. That was a legal argument. And the Veterans Court had “squarely rejected [the] argument that [it] lacks the authority to remand under those circumstances.”
The appeal also satisfied the second and third requirements. The Veterans Court decision was adverse, as reversal of that court would grant the veteran the relief that he sought. And the veteran’s argument—that he is legally entitled to win without a remand—would be mooted by a remand.
Chavez v. McDonough, 2024 WL 1685140 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2024), available at the Federal Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
Recent Posts
Injunction appeals have been in the spotlight of late. We’ve seen a few recent decisions on appeals from temporary restraining orders. And this month has already produced three cases involving effective denials of preliminary injunctions. One of these cases raised a question about the test for effective—and thus appealable—injunction denials. Under the Supreme Court’s decision […]
Continue reading....
In Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner v. Festeryga, the en banc Fifth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) does not bar review of waiver-based remands. In so holding, the court overruled its decision in In re Weaver.
Continue reading....
In Amazon.com Services LLC v. NLRB, the Fifth Circuit split over whether a party could appeal from the district court’s delay in deciding a preliminary-injunction motion. The would-be appellant sought to enjoin an order that it file a brief in an NLRB proceeding. When the deadline for that brief arrived, the district court had not […]
Continue reading....
April saw more decisions on whether temporary restraining orders were appealable injunctions. The Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s litigation privileges. And another court of appeals held that defendants cannot immediately appeal from the denial of a church-autonomy defense. Let’s start, however, with a particularly interested decision on what counts as a claim […]
Continue reading....
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
Continue reading....