James W. Rorie v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JAMES W. RORIE,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1194
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-5377, Chief Judge Michael P.
Allen, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: June 17, 2026
______________________
T RACY K AY ALSUP , AlsupLaw, LLC, Beaverton, OR, ar-
gued for claimant-appellant.
EVAN WISSER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di-
vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
ELIZABETH M ARIE HOSFORD, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
Case: 25-1194 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 06/17/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

RORIE v. COLLINS 2
BRETT SHUMATE; BRIAN D. G RIFFIN, J ONATHAN K RISCH , Of-
fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet-
erans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before REYNA, HUGHES , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
HUGHES , Circuit Judge.
James W. Rorie appeals a decision from the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that affirmed
a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denying enti-
tlement to an effective date before November 18, 1988, for
service-connected tinea pedis. See Rorie v. McDonough,
37 Vet. App. 430, 434 (2024). Because the Veterans Court
determined that Mr. Rorie forfeited the arguments he now
raises on appeal, we dismiss for lack of subject matter ju-
risdiction.
On appeal, Mr. Rorie argues that the Veterans Court
misinterpreted 38 C.F.R. § 3.157(b) (1985) (repealed 2015)
with respect to a 1985 VA examination report that he
claims should have been interpreted as an informal claim
for an increased disability rating for a previously “allowed”
formal claim. See Appellant Br. 5–16. However, the Veter-
ans Court found that this argument was forfeited because
it was not raised in his opening brief. Rorie, 37 Vet. App.
at 439 (citing Andrews v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 151,
159 (2021)). Before us, Mr. Rorie briefly challenges the Vet-
erans Court’s finding. See Appellant Br. 13 n.3. But the
Veterans Court’s finding is an application of law to fact
that we do not have jurisdiction to review.1 38 U.S.C.
1 To the extent that the Veterans Court’s interpreta-
tion of § 3.157(b) could implicate a legal issue within this
court’s jurisdiction, Mr. Rorie raised this argument only in
the context of a theory he forfeited at the Veterans Court.
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction. See Belcher v. West,
Case: 25-1194 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 06/17/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

RORIE v. COLLINS 3
§ 7292(d)(2); see Moody v. Principi, 360 F.3d 1306, 1310
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[W]e are without jurisdiction to review a
factual determination or an application of law to the par-
ticular facts in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Vet-
erans Claims.”).
Because Mr. Rorie’s arguments on appeal challenge
the Veteran’s Court’s application of law to fact, we dismiss
this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
214 F.3d 1335, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (finding no jurisdic-
tion to review an issue not properly raised to the Veterans
Court).
Case: 25-1194 Document: 51 Page: 3 Filed: 06/17/2026

-- 3 of 3 --