David James v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DAVID JAMES,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1992
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 24-9382, Judge Margaret C. Bart-
ley.
______________________
Decided: July 30, 2026
______________________
D AVID J AMES , Lamesa, TX, pro se.
YARIV S. P IERCE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
G EOFFREY M. L ONG , P ATRICIA M. MCC ARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE; Y. K EN L EE, ANDREW J. STEINBERG, Office of
General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 25-1992 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 07/30/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

JAMES v. COLLINS 2
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
David James is a veteran. S.A.1 1. On November 3,
2023, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals issued a decision
denying James’s request for an increased rating for his ser-
vice-connected asthma and total disability based on indi-
vidual employability. S.A. 8–17. On December 19, 2024,
James filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”). S.A. 6. On May
15, 2025, the Veterans Court, in a single-judge decision,
dismissed the appeal because James’s notice of appeal was
untimely filed and he had not established that he was en-
titled to equitable tolling. S.A. 1–4. On June 6, 2025, the
Veterans Court entered judgment. S.A. 5. On June 16, the
Veterans Court received James’s motion for a three-judge
panel decision. S.A. 7. And on June 25, 2025, James filed
his notice of appeal with this court. S.A. 7. The Veterans
Court is yet to rule on the motion for a three-judge panel
decision. S.A. 7.
The government asserts that remand is appropriate
for the Veterans Court to consider the motion for a three-
judge panel decision—which may establish that James is
entitled to equitable tolling—in the first instance. Infor-
mal Resp. Br. 11–14. We cannot consider and remand the
appeal ourselves, however, because the motion for a three-
judge panel decision renders the Veterans Court’s judg-
ment non-final, depriving us of jurisdiction. Stone v. Im-
migr. & Naturalization Servs., 514 U.S. 386, 392 (1995)
(post-decision motions for further review render the under-
lying order non-final for purposes of judicial review) (abro-
gated on unrelated grounds); Allen v. Principi, 237 F.3d
1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[O]ur jurisdiction is limited to
1 “S.A” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed
with Respondent’s brief.
Case: 25-1992 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 07/30/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

JAMES v. COLLINS 3
the review of final decisions of the Veterans Court.”) (em-
phasis in original) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a)). We accord-
ingly dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1992 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 07/30/2026

-- 3 of 3 --