David S. Fritz v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DAVID S. FRITZ,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2026-1307
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 25-6047, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: July 13, 2026
______________________
D AVID S. F RITZ, Gainesville, TX, pro se.
D ANIEL H OFFMAN, 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; RICHARD S TEPHEN H UBER, K EN L EE , Office of
General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 26-1307 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 07/13/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

FRITZ v. COLLINS 2
Before CHEN, HUGHES , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Mr. David S. Fritz, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, pro-
ceeding pro se, appeals an order from the Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) dismissing his
claims. Fritz v. Collins, No. 25-6047, 2025 WL 3458348, at
*1–2 (Vet. App. Dec. 2, 2025) (Decision). The Veterans
Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Fritz’s ap-
peal, because an appeal of a fully favorable Board of Veter-
ans’ Appeals (Board) decision does not satisfy the “case or
controversy” requirement. Id. at *1. We determine that
the Veterans Court’s jurisdictional review was proper and
affirm the court’s dismissal.
BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2025, the Board granted Mr. Fritz service
connection for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD), bipolar disorder, and depression. Id. at *1. The
Board’s decision did not include any denials of claims. See
generally SAppx39–45.1 On July 22, 2025, Mr. Fritz filed
a Notice of Appeal for the Board decision. Decision, 2025
WL 3458348, at *1.
The Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Fritz’s appeal, not-
ing that its jurisdiction is limited to cases in which there is
“a live issue” for the court to review. Id. at *1–2. Because
the Board decision Mr. Fritz sought to appeal was “fully fa-
vorable,” there was no “live issue” for the Veterans Court.
Id. at *1 (citing Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 12, 13
(1990)). The Veterans Court also noted that Mr. Fritz’s ar-
guments regarding the effective date of his service connec-
tion claims required seeking review within the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA). Id.
1 “SAppx” refers to the appendix filed concurrently
with the government’s informal brief.
Case: 26-1307 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 07/13/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

FRITZ v. COLLINS 3
Mr. Fritz timely appealed the Veterans Court’s deci-
sion. See ECF No. 1. We have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292.
D ISCUSSION
“Our review of decisions by the Veterans Court is lim-
ited by statute.” Davis v. Collins, 176 F.4th 663, 668 (Fed.
Cir. 2026) (citation omitted). We may review challenges to
the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation
and interpret constitutional and statutory provisions to the
extent presented and necessary to a decision. 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(c). But, absent a constitutional challenge, we can-
not review challenges to the Veterans Court’s factual de-
terminations or the application of law to fact. Id.
§ 7292(d)(2). “The scope of the Veterans Court’s jurisdic-
tion presents a legal question within our jurisdiction to re-
view.” Davis, 176 F.4th at 668 (citation omitted).
I
Mr. Fritz argues that the Veterans Court improperly
dismissed his four bases for appeal,2 because he met the
requirements for Article III standing. Appellant Br. 1. He
also argues the Veterans Court erred in its jurisdictional
analysis, because it failed to “review the entire record” be-
fore the Board. Id. at 6. We disagree.
In dismissing Mr. Fritz’s appeal, the Veterans Court
determined that the appealed Board decision granted
Mr. Fritz relief on all issues fairly presented in his appeal:
2 These “four bases” refer to Mr. Fritz’s four argu-
ments before the Veterans Court: “I, the validity of the
presentation in 2020, II, the [traumatic brain injury]
[(TBI)]/headaches issue, III, all other psychiatric issues per
Clemons, and IV, effective dates of compensation due to
constitutionally insufficient notice.” Decision, 2025 WL
3458348, at *1 (alterations in original).
Case: 26-1307 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 07/13/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

FRITZ v. COLLINS 4
“entitlement to service connection for ADHD, bipolar disor-
der, and depression.” Decision, 2025 WL 3458348, at *1.
Thus, the decision was not adverse to Mr. Fritz, and his
appeal did not meet the Veterans Court’s case or contro-
versy requirement. Id. The Veterans Court also reviewed
each of Mr. Fritz’s four bases for appeal, determining that
these bases: (i) referenced service connection claims that
were addressed in previous, final decisions, (ii) were favor-
ably resolved in the Board decision, or (iii) required review
at the regional office level. Id.
We agree with the Veterans Court’s jurisdictional as-
sessment. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a), “a party must be ‘ad-
versely affected’ by a decision of the Board in order to
appeal to the Court of Veterans Appeals.” Zevalkink v.
Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Board
decision that Mr. Fritz chose to appeal was “fully favora-
ble” to him. Decision, 2025 WL 3458348, at *1. Mr. Fritz
does not dispute this finding.
In the decision, the Board noted that Mr. Fritz had “as-
serted separate claims seeking compensation for PTSD,
[ADHD], depression, bipolar disorder, and residuals of a
traumatic brain injury (TBI) including headaches.” SAppx
41. But it also noted the PTSD claim had been granted in
an October 2022 decision, and Mr. Fritz had failed to ap-
peal a December 2018 denial of service connection for the
TBI claim. Id. at 42–43 , Thus, because the proper scope
of Mr. Fritz’s appeal was limited to “whether the Veteran
was entitled to service connection for depression, bipolar
disorder, and ADHD,” the Board’s decision concerned only
these claims. Id. at 41.
The Veterans Court’s jurisdiction is limited to “the rec-
ord of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board.” 38
U.S.C § 7252(b). Therefore, the only claims over which the
Veterans Court could have found jurisdiction were
Mr. Fritz’s depression, bipolar disorder, and ADHD claims.
In its dismissal order, the Veterans Court reviewed and
cited the relevant portions of the record before concluding
Case: 26-1307 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 07/13/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

FRITZ v. COLLINS 5
that there was no case or controversy. See Decision, 2025
WL 3458348, at *1. Accordingly, we agree that the Veter-
ans Court lacks jurisdiction.
II
Mr. Fritz contends that the Board and VA’s failure to
review his entire record while adjudicating his TBI claims
and “all other psychiatric issues,” or provide adequate no-
tice of his TBI decision amount to due process violations.
See Appellant Br. 3–4, 12–13. We disagree.
With respect to Mr. Fritz’s arguments related to his
TBI claim, as the Veterans Court correctly noted, the
Board ascertained Mr. Fritz’s TBI claim was addressed
previously in a separate claim stream and, therefore, be-
yond the scope of his appeal. See Decision, 2025 WL
3458348, at *1. The remainder of Mr. Fritz’s due process
arguments address psychiatric claims—i.e., his depression,
bipolar disorder, and ADHD claims—that were part of his
favorable Board decision. Id. Given that the Board had
granted all requested relief as to those claims, the Veterans
Court properly determined that it could not grant any fur-
ther relief and lacked jurisdiction over an appeal of this fa-
vorable decision; thus, it did err in not addressing the due
process arguments Mr. Fritz raises here.
CONCLUSION
We have reviewed the remainder of Mr. Fritz’s argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 26-1307 Document: 16 Page: 5 Filed: 07/13/2026

-- 5 of 5 --