Mark J. Stiles v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MARK J. STILES,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-2252
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20-3523, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch, Judge Margaret C. Bart-
ley.
______________________
Decided: June 23, 2026
______________________
ADAM R. L UCK, GloverLuck, LLP, Dallas, TX, argued
for claimant-appellant. Also represented by AMANDA
SUNDAY .
REBECCA T AYLOR MITCHELL , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.
Also represented by MARTIN F. H OCKEY , J R., P ATRICIA M.
Case: 24-2252 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 06/23/2026

-- 1 of 9 --

STILES v. COLLINS 2
MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE, EVAN WISSER; BRIAN D.
G RIFFIN, D AVID HARMANTAS , Office of General Counsel,
United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washing-
ton, DC.
______________________
Before P ROST , T ARANTO, and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit
Judges.
T ARANTO, Circuit Judge.
Veteran Mark Stiles, dissatisfied with the ruling of the
regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
on two disability-benefit claims, appealed to the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals (Board). The Board, rather than decid-
ing whether Mr. Stiles was entitled to what he sought on
those claims, remanded them to the regional office for fur-
ther proceedings. That remand was not appealed, and un-
disputedly was not appealable, to the United States Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) under 38
U.S.C. § 7252(a), which grants the Veterans Court “juris-
diction to review decisions of the Board.” But Mr. Stiles
had also asserted to the Board that the record revealed two
additional claims, which he argued had not been adjudi-
cated by the VA regional office; and as to those claims, the
Board did not explicitly either remand or refer them to the
regional office. Mr. Stiles filed an appeal to the Veterans
Court regarding those claims, arguing that the Board had
breached a regulation-based duty to refer them to the re-
gional office. The Veterans Court dismissed the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. Stiles v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 328
(2024) (2024 CAVC Decision). Mr. Stiles appeals from that
dismissal. We affirm.
I
Mr. Stiles served on active duty in the United States
Air Force from July 1992 to October 1999. In 2006, he filed
with VA a claim for service-connected disability benefits,
see 38 U.S.C. § 1110, for nasal sinus septoplasty, but the
Case: 24-2252 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 06/23/2026

-- 2 of 9 --

STILES v. COLLINS 3
relevant VA regional office denied the claim the next year.
Mr. Stiles filed a notice of disagreement and, by letter from
his representative, informed VA that he was experiencing
“vertigo.” J.A. 82.
In December 2008, the regional office responded to the
letter. It noted that VA classifies vertigo as merely a symp-
tom of a separately identified disability and stated that ser-
vice connection for vertigo had not yet been addressed by
VA and that no action would be taken respecting vertigo
unless Mr. Stiles claimed a specific disability associated
with it. J.A. 83–84.
In February 2013, the Board made a positive determi-
nation regarding the claim based on nasal sinus septo-
plasty, finding service connection of the disabilities of
chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis. J.A. 85–101. In its
decision, the Board observed that Mr. Stiles’s 1997 treat-
ment records reflected a diagnosis of sleep apnea and that
his post-service medical records showed he had “symp-
toms” of “dizziness.” J.A. 92.
A month later, the regional office issued disability rat-
ings for chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis. J.A. 104–07.
Mr. Stiles filed a notice of disagreement to seek increased
ratings, contending in particular that his conditions “af-
fected [his] ability to sleep.” J.A. 112. In 2018, the Board
remanded the matter for further consideration of the
chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis ratings, J.A. 137–39,
but the regional office in May 2019 declined to alter the
ratings on the remand, J.A. 142–52. In September 2019,
Mr. Stiles returned to the Board, submitting written argu-
ments, J.A. 154–63, which included a contention that there
were pending, unadjudicated claims before VA for vertigo
and sleep apnea, J.A. 158–62.
On November 14, 2019, the Board issued an order
(2019 Board Decision) remanding the case because “[a]ddi-
tional development [was] needed,” J.A. 164, and in its brief
explanation, the Board identified only chronic sinusitis and
Case: 24-2252 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 06/23/2026

-- 3 of 9 --

STILES v. COLLINS 4
allergic rhinitis as the subject of the remand, J.A. 165–66.
The Board directed VA to “[o]btain the Veteran’s VA treat-
ment records” and explained that the “examiner should re-
view the VA and private treatment records that have been
associated with the claims file since [ ] April 2019 . . . [and]
provide an addendum opinion that addresses this addi-
tional information.” J.A. 166–67. The 2019 Board Decision
did not mention vertigo or sleep apnea.
In March 2020, Mr. Stiles moved for reconsideration,
asking the Board to address the vertigo and sleep-apnea
claims that he had raised in his September 2019 letter and
arguing that the Board had a duty to consider all theories
of entitlement to the benefits reasonably raised by the rec-
ord. J.A. 168–70. A month later, the Board concluded that
the motion for reconsideration “must be dismissed” because
“the Board has not yet rendered a final decision on the
above issues,” having only issued “a remand [that] is in the
nature of a preliminary order, issued for the purpose of de-
veloping all pertinent evidence prior to appellate review.”
J.A. 171. The Board added that “[w]hen the development
is finished, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) [i.e.,
the regional office] will readjudicate the appeal”; “[i]f the
decision remains unfavorable, the case will be returned to
the Board for a comprehensive review of the entire record”;
and “[t]he additional evidence submitted with [Mr. Stiles’s]
[m]otion will be forwarded to the AOJ for appropriate ac-
tion.” Id.
In May 2020, Mr. Stiles appealed from the 2019 Board
Decision to the Veterans Court. The Secretary (head of VA)
moved for dismissal, contending that the 2019 Board Deci-
sion is not a decision that the Veterans Court has jurisdic-
tion to review. Mr. Stiles opposed the dismissal. In 2021,
the Veterans Court agreed with the Secretary, but it later
permitted the case to proceed to oral argument.
In 2022, while Mr. Stiles’s appeal was still pending be-
fore the Veterans Court, the Board granted his request for
Case: 24-2252 Document: 50 Page: 4 Filed: 06/23/2026

-- 4 of 9 --

STILES v. COLLINS 5
an increased rating of the chronic-sinusitis claim, and in
doing so, it noted that Mr. Stiles’s records indicated that he
had experienced vertigo. J.A. 284. The Board also re-
manded his allergic-rhinitis claim. J.A. 290–91. The
Board did not, however, address the sleep apnea claim.
In May 2024, the Veterans Court again dismissed Mr.
Stiles’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the
2019 Board Decision was not a “decision” within 38 U.S.C.
§ 7252 because it contained no express or implicit grant or
denial of any of the claims at issue. 2024 CAVC Decision,
37 Vet. App. at 336–39. It was undisputed that the Board’s
remand of the chronic-sinusitis and allergic-rhinitis claims
was not a “decision.” Id. at 336. And, the Veterans Court
concluded, the Board simply made no “decision” granting
or denying the vertigo and sleep-apnea claims—not even
about “the question of whether [Mr. Stiles] had unadjudi-
cated pending claims” based on vertigo and sleep apnea.
Id. at 338.
The Veterans Court entered final judgment in June
2024. J.A. 12. Mr. Stiles timely appealed.
II
Mr. Stiles argues that the Veterans Court legally erred
when it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to issue the
directive to the Board that he seeks, namely, a directive
requiring the Board to refer the vertigo and sleep-apnea
claims to the regional office for adjudication. See Appel-
lant’s Opening Br. at 12–15, 18–19. For the Board obliga-
tion to make the referral, Mr. Stiles relies on a regulation,
38 C.F.R. § 20.904(b), which states, in relevant part, that
“[t]he Board shall refer to the agency of original jurisdiction
for appropriate consideration and handling in the first in-
stance all claims reasonably raised by the record that have
not been initially adjudicated by the agency of original ju-
risdiction.” Id. The premise of Mr. Stiles’s contention, and
of the Veterans Court decision he challenges, is that the
Case: 24-2252 Document: 50 Page: 5 Filed: 06/23/2026

-- 5 of 9 --

STILES v. COLLINS 6
regional office did not adjudicate either the merits or the
pendency of vertigo and sleep-apnea claims.
We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. “After a deci-
sion of the [Veterans Court] is entered in a case, any party
to the case may obtain a review of the decision with respect
to the validity of a decision . . . on a rule of law or of any
statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof
(other than a determination as to a factual matter) that
was relied on by the Court in making the decision.” 38
U.S.C. § 7292(a). Mr. Stiles asserts that the Veterans
Court misinterpreted its jurisdictional statute, 38 U.S.C.
§ 7252, so as to prevent Veterans Court enforcement in this
case of the Board referral authority set forth in 38 C.F.R.
§ 20.904(b). That assertion presents a legal issue that is
within our jurisdiction to address. Roane v. McDonough,
64 F.4th 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Without definitively resolving the issue, we conclude
that Mr. Stiles has not made a persuasive argument that
the Veterans Court committed error regarding its jurisdic-
tional statute. Mr. Stiles focuses overwhelmingly on the
Board’s obligations under the regulation addressing Board
referral of certain unadjudicated matters to the regional of-
fice. But that focus does not address the Veterans Court’s
jurisdiction under its relevant statute. Mr. Stiles asserts
that the Veterans Court must have jurisdiction to enforce
that regulation, but he does not provide a coherent, persua-
sive explanation of why the Veterans Court has statutory
jurisdiction in this case even if he is right about the as-
serted regulatory duty of the Board. The governmental
bodies are different, and the sources of law are different.
Mr. Stiles has not made the double shift needed to show
error in the Veterans Court’s statutory-jurisdiction ruling.
The statute grants jurisdiction to the Veterans Court
“to review decisions of the Board.” 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a). “A
‘decision’ of the Board, for purposes of the Veterans Court’s
jurisdiction under section 7252, is the decision with respect
Case: 24-2252 Document: 50 Page: 6 Filed: 06/23/2026

-- 6 of 9 --

STILES v. COLLINS 7
to the benefit sought by the veteran.” Maggitt v. West, 202
F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (explaining that the juris-
dictional focus is on whether there was a decision to grant
or deny a benefit, not on whether particular arguments
were made and addressed). Here, there is no evident “de-
cision” on any benefit in the 2019 Board Decision.
Mr. Stiles agrees that the Board’s remand on the
chronic-sinusitis and allergic-rhinitis claims did not consti-
tute a decision, as made clear by long-settled precedent.
See Kirkpatrick v. Nicholson, 417 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (explaining that a remand is not a “decision”);
Howard v. Gober, 220 F.3d 1341, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(same); Appellant’s Opening Br. at 19. The only other
claims raised before the Board were about vertigo and sleep
apnea, and they must stand on their own for jurisdictional
purposes. That might always be true for distinct claims,
see Kirkpatrick, 417 F.3d at 1365 (discussing Howard, 220
F.3d at 1344), but it is certainly true here, where the other
claims before the Board (chronic sinusitis and allergic rhi-
nitis) undisputedly did not generate a Board “decision”
within § 7252.
Neither the 2019 Board Decision nor the subsequent
dismissal of Mr. Stiles’s request for reconsideration explic-
itly ruled on or even addressed the vertigo and sleep-apnea
claims. J.A. 164–67, 171–72. Because, on Mr. Stiles’s own
premise, there was no regional-office disposition of these
claims, this is not a case like Bean v. McDonough, 66 F.4th
979, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2023), where Board silence about a
claim that the regional office had denied itself constituted
a Board denial of (“decision” on) the claim (without expla-
nation). Here, regardless of how one reads the reconsider-
ation-motion dismissal, the Board did not grant or deny
those claims. At a minimum, it simply left further consid-
eration to the regional office; the Board did not itself decide
either the merits or even the existence of such asserted un-
adjudicated claims. Nothing in Mr. Stiles’s arguments to
us, which focus on the asserted Board obligation to “refer”
Case: 24-2252 Document: 50 Page: 7 Filed: 06/23/2026

-- 7 of 9 --

STILES v. COLLINS 8
these claims to the regional office, establishes a jurisdic-
tional basis for the Veterans Court.
We need not explore further or reach a definitive con-
clusion about the jurisdictional issue. In this case, we con-
clude, without any need to resolve factual disputes, that
Mr. Stiles has identified no prejudice, i.e., no harmful error,
even if we assume that the Veterans Court was wrong
about its jurisdiction to consider directing the Board to re-
fer the at-issue claims to the regional office, as sought by
Mr. Stiles. See Menegassi v. Shinseki, 638 F.3d 1379, 1383
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (recognizing that, as long as we do not
make factual findings reserved to the Veterans Court and
Board, we may affirm the Veterans Court’s judgment even
if it committed a legal error where the standard for harm-
less error is met). In this respect, we follow a course similar
to the one we followed in our nonprecedential decision in
Batson v. Collins, No. 2023-2408, 2025 WL 1387730 (Fed.
Cir. May 14, 2025).
Batson, like this case, involved an invocation of 38
C.F.R. § 20.904(b). We recognized that the regulation sug-
gests on its face the existence of some “Board authority to
act on some issues not yet adjudicated by the [regional of-
fice], perhaps including when the veteran points out such
issues.” Batson, 2025 WL 1387730, at *2. But we did not
“decide the interpretive question” because we did not see
how “the answer to it would make a difference.” Id.
We explained that “[a]ll Mr. Batson seeks is a Board
directive to the [regional office] to adjudicate the assertedly
still-pending . . . claim.” Id. But, we reasoned, there was
an established procedure for securing the desired adjudica-
tion; indeed, “it has long been recognized by the Veterans
Court that ‘the appropriate procedure for a claimant who
believes that his claim is unadjudicated is to pursue reso-
lution of the claim by the regional office.’” Id. (quoting Cog-
burn v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 205, 215 n.5 (2010) (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted)). And “use of that
Case: 24-2252 Document: 50 Page: 8 Filed: 06/23/2026

-- 8 of 9 --

STILES v. COLLINS 9
procedure, compared to securing the Board order he seeks
in this appeal, would not impair” the veteran’s interests,
including “his entitlement to [the] effective date” he sought
“if otherwise warranted.” Id.
We see no reason for a different conclusion here. Mr.
Stiles may pursue the benefits before the regional office.
The regional office decision(s) may then be reviewed by the
Board. See Bean, 66 F.4th at 982–83. Mr. Stiles has not
identified any concrete, non-speculative way in which he
would be worse off following that procedure than he would
be with the referral he seeks.
III
We therefore affirm the Veterans Court’s dismissal of
Mr. Stiles’s appeal. The parties shall bear their own costs.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-2252 Document: 50 Page: 9 Filed: 06/23/2026

-- 9 of 9 --