Harvey Lee Malone v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
HARVEY LEE MALONE,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-2128
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-2246, Chief Judge Michael P.
Allen.
______________________
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
Dr. Harvey L. Malone appeals from a decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that
affirmed-in-part and remanded-in-part a decision by the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals. See Malone v. McDonough,
No. 23-2246, 2024 WL 1827133, at *10 (Vet. App. 2024).
On appeal, the government suggests that a remand to the
Veterans Court may be appropriate because the Veterans
Court erred in declining to address any arguments related
Case: 24-2128 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 05/12/2026

-- 1 of 2 --

MALONE v. COLLINS 2
to clear and unmistakable error (CUE) on the basis that
the Board did not address Dr. Malone’s CUE claim in its
decision. Appellee Br. 15–17. We agree. In its decision, the
Veterans Court concluded that “any arguments concerning
CUE are not appropriate for [its] review and [it] will not
address them” because “[t]he Board did not address any
motion to revise a previous decision based on CUE in its
decision.” Malone, 2024 WL 1827133, at *3. However, our
precedent clearly states that “[d]enial of a claim, which in-
cludes the failure of the Board to consider a claim that was
reasonably raised before it, constitutes a decision of the
Board—reviewable by the Veterans Court.” Bean v.
McDonough, 66 F.4th 979, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Here, the
Veterans Court was required to analyze its own jurisdic-
tion with respect to Dr. Malone’s alleged CUE claims and
to determine, for example, whether Dr. Malone’s CUE
claim was appropriately raised and remained unadjudi-
cated.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The Veterans Court’s decision is remanded for fur-
ther proceedings consistent with this order. The
Veterans Court may, if it deems appropriate, re-
mand this case to the Board for fact-finding pur-
poses.
(2) Costs are awarded to Dr. Malone.
May 12, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 24-2128 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 05/12/2026

-- 2 of 2 --