Case: 21-1639 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 10/07/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ANITA R. BROWN,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2021-1639
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-7601, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: October 7, 2021
______________________
ANITA R. BROWN, Frisco, TX, pro se.
KARA WESTERCAMP, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., LOREN MISHA
PREHEIM; Y. KEN LEE, SAMANTHA ANN SYVERSON, Office of
General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 21-1639 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 10/07/2021
2 BROWN v. MCDONOUGH
______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Anita Brown appeals a United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims decision dismissing her appeal from
the Board of Veterans Appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
Brown v. Wilkie, No. 19-7601,
2020 WL 7060025 (Vet. App.
Dec. 3, 2020). Because the Veterans Court correctly dis-
missed Ms. Brown’s appeal, we affirm.
I
Ms. Brown served in the United States Army from July
1987 until July 1992. S.A. 3. 1 On May 1, 2017, Ms. Brown
applied for disability compensation and related compensa-
tion benefits based on her post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), back condition, left-foot condition, and right-foot
condition. S.A. 66–69. A Department of Veterans Affairs’
Regional Office (RO) granted service connection for PTSD,
awarding Ms. Brown a 30% rating, but denied service con-
nection for the other conditions. S.A. 55. Ms. Brown filed
Notices of Disagreement, seeking a 100% rating for each
condition. S.A. 50–53. The RO issued a statement of the
case, explaining its reasoning for the 30% rating for PTSD
and for denying service connection for the other conditions.
S.A. 16, 44–49.
Ms. Brown appealed to the Board. She explained her
PTSD had been diagnosed by a physician and requested re-
view of all medical documentation. S.A. 11–12. Her re-
quest did not mention the other conditions.
Id. In the
Board’s August 23, 2019 decision, it denied Ms. Brown’s
1 “S.A.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed
with the government’s response brief.
Case: 21-1639 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 10/07/2021
BROWN v. MCDONOUGH 3
request to reopen the back and foot condition claims be-
cause Ms. Brown did not present any new and material ev-
idence for those conditions. S.A. 6. For her PTSD claim,
the Board remanded to the VA to update the records with
documentation pertaining to Ms. Brown’s treatment, to
schedule her for an “examination to ascertain the severity
of her service-connected PTSD,” and for the medical exam-
iner to detail Ms. Brown’s condition and its severity.
S.A. 9.
Ms. Brown appealed the Board’s remand decision to
the Veterans Court. The Veterans Court dismissed the ap-
peal because it lacked jurisdiction to address matters the
Board remanded, explaining that the PTSD claim was still
pending and had not been adjudicated. Brown,
2020 WL
7060025, at *1. 2 Ms. Brown appeals the Veterans Court’s
dismissal.
II
Whether the Veterans Court possesses jurisdiction is a
legal issue that we review de novo. See
38
U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1); Maggitt v. West,
202 F.3d 1370, 1374
(Fed. Cir. 2000). The Veterans Court has “exclusive juris-
diction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals.” 38 U.S.C.§ 7252. We have explained that a Board’s
remand is not a decision by the Board over which the Vet-
erans Court has jurisdiction because a remand neither
grants nor denies relief. See, e.g., Kirkpatrick v. Nicholson,
417 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Here, because the
Board’s decision to remand for further development of
Ms. Brown’s PTSD claim neither granted nor denied her
relief, the Veterans Court lacked jurisdiction to review it.
2 After the Board’s remand decision, but before the
Veterans Court’s decision, the RO issued a decision in-
creasing Ms. Brown’s rating for PTSD to 70%. S.A. 3–5.
This increased rating decision is not on appeal.
Case: 21-1639 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 10/07/2021
4 BROWN v. MCDONOUGH
Accordingly, we affirm the Veterans Court’s dismissal of
Ms. Brown’s appeal.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
