Preston E. Young v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PRESTON E. YOUNG,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1386
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-6049, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: November 18, 2025
______________________
K ENNETH D OJAQUEZ, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka,
KS, argued for claimant-appellant.
ERIC P. BRUSKIN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented
by MARTIN F. HOCKEY , J R., P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
YAAKOV R OTH ; EVAN SCOTT G RANT , BRIAN D. G RIFFIN, Of-
fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet-
erans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before CHEN, CLEVENGER , and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1386 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 11/18/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

YOUNG v. COLLINS 2
HUGHES , Circuit Judge.
Preston E. Young appeals a November 22, 2023, deci-
sion by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims. Mr. Young alleged clear and unmistakable error in
two rating decisions denying him compensation for a right-
knee disorder. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied
Mr. Young’s CUE claims. Mr. Young appealed to the Vet-
erans Court, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to con-
sider his CUE claims because the regional office had not
yet considered them. He also argued, for the first time, that
the underlying regional office decisions were not final, and
that all CUE claims contain an inherent challenge to the
underlying decision’s finality. The Veterans Court agreed
the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider Mr. Young’s CUE
claims and vacated and remanded the Board’s findings.
However, the Veterans Court declined to consider
Mr. Young’s newly raised finality arguments.
On appeal, Mr. Young argues the Veterans Court mis-
interpreted 38 U.S.C. § 5109A and 38 C.F.R. § 3.105 (2013)
when assessing his finality arguments. But we lack juris-
diction to consider Mr. Young’s argument because the Vet-
erans Court expressly declined to reach his finality
arguments. J.A. 6 (“Under the circumstances of this case,
the Court declines to consider Mr. Young’s § 3.103(e)-based
nonfinality arguments, which were raised for the first time
on appeal.”); J.A. 8 (“Weighing the competing interests in
this case, the Court declines to consider Mr. Young’s novel
arguments on appeal.”). We do not have jurisdiction to re-
view legal questions on which the Veterans Court did not
rule. Smith v. Collins, 130 F.4th 1337, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir.
2025). Because we are without jurisdiction to consider
Mr. Young’s appeal, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1386 Document: 58 Page: 2 Filed: 11/18/2025

-- 2 of 2 --