Terry Griffin v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TERRY GRIFFIN,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1450
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 24-0567, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: July 28, 2026
______________________
J. BRYAN J ONES , III, J B Jones III LLC, Lafayette, LA,
argued for claimant-appellant.
SOSUN B AE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Divi-
sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
ELIZABETH M ARIE HOSFORD, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
BRETT SHUMATE; BRIAN D. G RIFFIN, D AVID H ARMANTAS , Of-
fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet-
erans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 25-1450 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 07/28/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

GRIFFIN v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before CHEN, CUNNINGHAM , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
Mr. Griffin, a veteran of the U.S. Army, appeals a deci-
sion from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals (Board) denial of a motion to revise a 1986 Board De-
cision denying service-connected disability compensation.
Griffin v. McDonough, No. 24-0567, 2024 WL 5220353 (Vet.
App. Dec. 26, 2024) (Decision). Because this court lacks ju-
risdiction, we must dismiss.
BACKGROUND
In October 1983, Mr. Griffin applied for service-con-
nected disability compensation for various ailments, in-
cluding back and knee conditions. The Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) denied Mr. Griffin’s claims. The
Board issued a decision (1986 Decision) denying his appeal,
finding that both of Mr. Griffin’s back and knee conditions
were “congenital defects.” Id. at *1.
In 2021, Mr. Griffin filed a motion to revise the 1986
Decision based on clear and unmistakable error (CUE). Id.
at *2. Mr. Griffin argued that the 1986 Decision was erro-
neous in light of O’Bryan v. McDonald, 771 F.3d 1376 (Fed.
Cir. 2014), because the Board failed to acknowledge that a
disability capable of getting worse is not a “congenital de-
fect” for VA purposes. Decision, 2024 WL 5220353, at *2.
The Board found that there was no CUE in the 1986
Decision. Id. The Board stated that O’Bryan does not ap-
ply retroactively in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in
George v. McDonough, 596 U.S. 740 (2022). Decision, 2024
WL 5220353, at *2. Further, the Board found that regard-
less of whether O’Bryan applied, the 1986 Decision “did not
undebatably err in finding that the conditions were congen-
ital.” Id.
Case: 25-1450 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 07/28/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

GRIFFIN v. COLLINS 3
The Veterans Court affirmed. Id. at *3. The Veterans
Court found that it need not reach the applicability of
O’Bryan, because the interpretation of “congenital defect”
adopted in O’Bryan already existed at the time of the 1986
Decision through a VA General Counsel precedential opin-
ion issued in 1985. Id. at *2. But aside from whether
O’Bryan could apply retroactively, the Veterans Court con-
cluded that Mr. Griffin’s challenge to the 1986 Decision
was, at bottom, “a mere disagreement with the Board’s
weighing of the evidence, and such a disagreement cannot
amount to CUE.” Id. at *3.
D ISCUSSION
“This [C]ourt’s jurisdiction to review decisions by the
Veterans Court is limited.” Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d
1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Absent a constitutional issue,
this court may not review the Veterans Court’s factual find-
ings or its application of law to facts. Singleton v. Shinseki,
659 F.3d 1332, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
Mr. Griffin contends that this court has jurisdiction to
hear this case, because he presents a challenge to the Vet-
erans Court decision that “may have rested on an incorrect
rule of law.” Appellant Br. 3–4. For the alleged legal error,
he cites to the Board’s holding that O’Bryan did not apply
retroactively. Id. at 4–5.
While the Board discussed the impact of George on
O’Bryan’s retroactive effect, the Veterans Court did not
base its affirmance on this analysis by the Board. The Vet-
erans Court determined it “need not go so far.” Decision,
2024 WL 5220353, at *2. Specifically, because the 1985 VA
General Counsel opinion provided the same definition of
“congenital defect” as O’Bryan, the VA was already obli-
gated, at the time of the 1986 Decision, to apply the same
rule set forth in O’Bryan as to the distinction between a
non-compensable congenital defect (a “condition not con-
Case: 25-1450 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 07/28/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

GRIFFIN v. COLLINS 4
sidered capable of improving or deteriorating”) and a com-
pensable disease (a “condition considered capable of im-
proving or deteriorating”). J.A. 88 (citations omitted).
Ultimately, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board as
to the Board’s “second point:” Mr. Griffin could not estab-
lish CUE in the 1986 Decision in light of the “physician’s
opinion that the back and knee conditions were congenital
in nature.” Id. at *3. On this score, Mr. Griffin’s appeal
does no more than disagree with the Board’s weighing of
the evidence on a medical question. We cannot address this
argument, as it is beyond this court’s jurisdiction. Prinkey
v. Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2013) “([T]he
sufficiency of a medical opinion is a matter beyond our ju-
risdictional reach, because the underlying question is one
of fact.”).
We have reviewed the remainder of Mr. Griffin’s argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Because we lack juris-
diction over Mr. Griffin’s claims, we must dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1450 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 07/28/2026

-- 4 of 4 --