Donald Carlyle Hill v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DONALD CARLYLE HILL,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1769
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20-1576, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: May 11, 2026
______________________
D ONALD C. HILL , J R., Palm Desert, CA, argued pro se.
AUGUSTUS G OLDEN, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by MARTIN F. HOCKEY , J R., P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
BRETT SHUMATE; MATTHEW ALBANESE , D EREK S CADDEN,
Office of General Counsel, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 24-1769 Document: 93 Page: 1 Filed: 05/11/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

HILL v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE and R EYNA, Circuit
Judges.
L OURIE, Circuit Judge.
Donald Carlyle Hill appeals from a decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the
Veterans Court”) dismissing his appeal from the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) for lack of jurisdiction.
S.A. 1–2.1 The Veterans Court dismissed Hill’s appeal be-
cause it concluded that the Board did not render a final de-
cision adverse to Hill that would afford it jurisdiction to
review the decision pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and
7266(a).
The Board’s order that was appealed to and dismissed
by the Veterans Court granted one claim, remanded four
claims, referred two claims for initial adjudication, and dis-
missed two claims that it concluded Hill voluntarily dis-
missed. S.A. 22–23. “Our case law and [§] 7104(d)(2)
define a Board decision as including an order granting ap-
propriate relief or denying relief.” Kirkpatrick v. Nichol-
son, 417 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Board’s
remand and referral determinations in this case are there-
fore not “decisions” which confer jurisdiction to the Veter-
ans Court within the meaning of § 7252(a). See id. at 1364–
65. Furthermore, the Board’s grant of one of Hill’s claims
is not “adverse” to him such that the Veterans Court could
review that claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a). And finally,
the Veterans Court’s determination that Hill failed to ar-
gue that the Board improperly dismissed two claims, and
therefore abandoned those claims and arguments, is an is-
sue that this court lacks jurisdiction to review. See Andre
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed by
the government, filed at ECF 31.
Case: 24-1769 Document: 93 Page: 2 Filed: 05/11/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

HILL v. COLLINS 3
v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[W]e
lack jurisdiction to consider [a] challenge to [an] abandon-
ment ruling.”). We accordingly affirm the Veterans Court’s
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1769 Document: 93 Page: 3 Filed: 05/11/2026

-- 3 of 3 --