Larry D. James v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LARRY D. JAMES,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-2141
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-653, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith.
______________________
Decided: July 28, 2026
______________________
K ENNETH D OJAQUEZ, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka,
KS, argued for claimant-appellant.
MATTHEW J UDE CARHART , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.
Also represented by ERIC P. BRUSKIN , P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Case: 24-2141 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 07/28/2026

-- 1 of 6 --

JAMES v. COLLINS 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CUNNINGHAM and STARK,
Circuit Judges.
CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judge.
Larry James appeals a decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”),
dismissing in part his appeal denying entitlement to a
higher disability rating for headaches beginning Septem-
ber 7, 2018, vacating in part the decision by the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying entitlement to a com-
pensable disability rating for headaches before Septem-
ber 7, 2018, and remanding for further proceedings. James
v. McDonough, No. 23-0653, 2024 WL 1880107, at *8
(Vet. App. Apr. 30, 2024) (“Decision”). For the reasons dis-
cussed below, we dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. James served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force
from November 1982 until February 1985. Decision at *1.
In July 1985, a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) re-
gional office (“RO”) granted Mr. James benefits for head-
aches and assigned a noncompensable rating, effective
February 1985. Id.; see also J.A. 19. In January 2015,
Mr. James sought an increased compensable rating for
headaches. Decision at *1. A VA examiner diagnosed
Mr. James with “chronic daily headache syndrome with
tension type and migraine characteristics.” Id. In
March 2015, the RO denied an increased rating for head-
aches. Id.
Mr. James appealed the March 2015 RO decision, lead-
ing to the Board remanding for a new VA examination re-
garding the severity of Mr. James’s headaches and then
denying entitlement to a higher rating for headaches in
July 2020. Id. at *2–3. Mr. James appealed that Board de-
cision, and the Veterans Court granted a joint motion for
remand to the Board in June 2021 because “the Board had
Case: 24-2141 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 07/28/2026

-- 2 of 6 --

JAMES v. COLLINS 3
provided inadequate reasons or bases for its decision.” Id.
at *3. Subsequently, Mr. James underwent another VA ex-
amination, and in August 2022, the RO increased
Mr. James’s disability rating for headaches to 50%, effec-
tive September 7, 2018. Id.; J.A. 50–51. The RO also de-
nied Mr. James “a compensable rating for headaches prior
to September 7, 2018.” Decision at *3; J.A. 53.
Mr. James appealed the RO decision to the Board and
then appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court.
See Decision at *3. The Veterans Court dismissed
Mr. James’s claim seeking a disability rating higher than
50% for his headaches beginning on September 7, 2018.
The Veterans Court vacated the “part of the Board’s deci-
sion denying entitlement to a compensable disability rating
for headaches prior to September 7, 2018,” id. at *8, and
remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opin-
ion of the Veterans Court, including for the Board to con-
sider in the first instance how this court’s precedent in
Spicer v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 1360, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2023),
may affect Mr. James’s claim to headache residuals based
on memory loss. See Decision at *7–8.
Mr. James timely appealed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions by the Vet-
erans Court is limited.” Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d
1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We review a decision “with re-
spect to the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on
a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any in-
terpretation thereof . . . that was relied on by the [Veter-
ans] Court in making the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a);
Smith v. Collins, 130 F.4th 1337, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
However, except with respect to constitutional issues, we
“may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination,
or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the
facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). That is
to say, “while we can review questions of law, we cannot
Case: 24-2141 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 07/28/2026

-- 3 of 6 --

JAMES v. COLLINS 4
review applications of law to fact.” Conway v. Principi,
353 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
III. D ISCUSSION
Mr. James asks us “to review the Veterans Court’s de-
termination to dismiss, in its entirety, [his] appeal with re-
spect to the post-2018 ratings for his headache disorder.”
Appellant’s Br. 2. He argues that we have jurisdiction to
review this determination because: (1) he challenges the
Veterans Court’s dismissal with respect to the post-2018
headaches rating, id. at 7–11; and (2) the Veterans Court
misinterpreted certain statutes and regulations, id.
at 11–15. We address each argument in turn.
A.
We do not have jurisdiction to review the Veterans
Court’s dismissal of Mr. James’s headaches disability rat-
ing claim regarding the time period beginning Septem-
ber 7, 2018. The Veterans Court’s dismissal of Mr. James’s
claim for a headaches disability rating in excess of 50% for
the period starting September 7, 2018, rested on how
Mr. James “d[id] not challenge the Board’s determination”
relating to the disability rating for that time period before
the Veterans Court. Decision at *1. The Veterans Court
“simply applied the jurisprudential rule that ‘an issue not
raised by an appellant in [his] opening brief . . . is waived.’”
Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (ci-
tation omitted). At most, the Veterans Court applied law
to fact, such that we do not have jurisdiction to review.
B.
Mr. James alternatively argues that he challenged the
Board’s interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 1131 and 38 C.F.R.
§ 4.20 before the Veterans Court. Appellant’s Br. 11–15.
Mr. James argues that: (1) the Veterans Court broadly
dismissed his challenge, id. at 11–12; and (2) that dismis-
sal was based on an incorrect statutory and regulatory in-
terpretation, id. at 13–15. We disagree.
Case: 24-2141 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 07/28/2026

-- 4 of 6 --

JAMES v. COLLINS 5
First, Mr. James’s argument relies on an overreading
of the Veterans Court’s decision. Mr. James “reads the
Veterans Court’s decision to broadly cut off any availability
of additional ratings after 2018 even if, on remand, the
Board finds that additional compensation is available prior
to 2018.” Id. at 12. But the Veterans Court did not broadly
cut off the availability of additional ratings after 2018. See
Decision at *6–7. Instead, the Veterans Court limited the
dismissal to the portion “of the Board’s October 6, 2022, de-
cision denying entitlement to a disability rating in excess
of 50% for headaches for the period beginning September 7,
2018.” Id. at *8. Indeed, counsel for Mr. James agreed that
if we do not read the dismissal as broadly as he does, then
we do not have jurisdiction. See Oral Arg. 06:07–29,
https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/24-2141_03
092026.mp3. In sum, we do not have jurisdiction to review
the Veterans Court’s dismissal decision.
Second, the Veterans Court did not rely on or interpret
statutes or regulations in the relevant claim on appeal.
Although Mr. James invokes 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 and 1131,
Appellant’s Br. 6 & n.1, 11–15,1 the Veterans Court ex-
pressly declined to consider Mr. James’s challenges under,
or otherwise interpret, either statute. Decision at *7
(“[Mr. James] does not cite, let alone apply, any authorities
governing statutory interpretation, and the Court will not
1 The Veterans Court discusses 38 U.S.C. § 1110 be-
cause Mr. James focuses on that provision below. Decision
at *7. However, as Mr. James explains in his opening brief,
the governing statutory provision is 38 U.S.C. § 1131 be-
cause Mr. James did not serve in wartime. Appellant’s
Br. 6 & n.1. The relevant portions of the statutory text are
identical, compare 38 U.S.C. § 1110 with 38 U.S.C. § 1131,
and the Secretary agrees the two statutes are “inter-
changeable” for “purposes of this appeal.” Appellee’s
Br. 3 n.2.
Case: 24-2141 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 07/28/2026

-- 5 of 6 --

JAMES v. COLLINS 6
address this argument further.” (citations omitted)).
Mr. James also invokes 38 C.F.R. § 4.20, see Appellant’s
Br. 6, 11–15, but to the extent the Veterans Court inter-
preted 38 C.F.R. § 4.20, it did so with respect to
Mr. James’s headaches claim “for the period prior to Sep-
tember 7, 2018[.]” Decision at *6–7. Because the Veterans
Court did not “rely on or address” these statutes or regula-
tions in the parts of the opinion relevant to this appeal, we
do not have jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s de-
cision. Colage v. Collins, 160 F.4th 1212, 1215–16
(Fed. Cir. 2025).
IV. CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. James’s remaining argu-
ments2 and find that none of the arguments raises a non-
frivolous issue over which we can assert jurisdiction. For
the foregoing reasons, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
2 Williams v. Principi addresses whether we should
exercise jurisdiction over remand orders of the Veterans
Court. 275 F.3d 1361, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Similarly
to Williams, 275 F.3d at 1364–65, Mr. James fails to iden-
tify a clear and final decision of a legal issue that was de-
cided adverse to him and how a remand proceeding would
moot the issue such that he could not later appeal any ad-
verse decision after the remand proceedings. Appellant’s
Br. 7–11.
Case: 24-2141 Document: 44 Page: 6 Filed: 07/28/2026

-- 6 of 6 --