Frederick Trulson v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FREDERICK TRULSON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1915
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 24-4063, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
Jr.
______________________
Decided: April 29, 2026
______________________
F REDERICK T RULSON, pro se.
N ATALEE A. ALLENBAUGH , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by WILLIAM J AMES G RIMALDI, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY , BRETT S HUMATE; MATTHEW ALBANESE , Y. K EN
L EE , Office of General Counsel, United States Department
of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 25-1915 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 04/29/2026

-- 1 of 6 --

TRULSON v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE and C UNNINGHAM ,
Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Frederick Trulson appeals a decision from the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming
the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denial of entitle-
ment to special monthly compensation above the rate pro-
vided under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(l). Appx. 1–2.1 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Trulson, a Navy veteran, received a 100% disabil-
ity rating for service-connected schizophrenia. Appx. 30.
The Department of Veterans Affairs awarded Mr. Trulson
special monthly compensation2 at the § 1114(l) rate effec-
tive May 2022. Appx 30–32. Mr. Trulson appealed to the
Board, asserting he was entitled to a higher special
monthly compensation rate under § 1114(r). Appx. 19;
Appx. 21; see 38 U.S.C. § 1114(r). The Board denied
Mr. Trulson’s appeal, finding he did not qualify. Appx. 19.
Thus, the Board found Mr. Trulson ineligible for a special
monthly compensation rate higher than the § 1114(l) rate.
Appx. 18–20.
1 “Appx.” refers to the appendix attached to Appel-
lee’s brief.
2 Special monthly compensation is an additional
level of compensation awarded to veterans for various im-
pairments caused by service-connected disabilities. See
38 U.S.C. § 1114(k)–(s). Special monthly compensation
may be awarded at a precise rate or at an intermediate rate
between various special monthly compensation levels. See
id. § 1114(p).
Case: 25-1915 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 04/29/2026

-- 2 of 6 --

TRULSON v. COLLINS 3
On appeal to the Veterans Court, Mr. Trulson argued
the Board erred in denying him the § 1114(r) rate because
his schizophrenia made living alone unsafe and required
him to live in a full-time medical facility unless he had a
care provider. See Appx. 3, 5–6. The Veterans Court noted
the Board’s finding that, regardless of Mr. Trulson’s re-
quired level of care, schizophrenia does not qualify as the
anatomical loss, blindness, or deafness necessary for spe-
cial monthly compensation under § 1114(r). Appx. 6; see
Appx. 19. Because Mr. Trulson did not “engage with [the
Board’s] findings,” the Veterans Court affirmed the Board
and entered judgment. Appx. 6, 8; Appx. 9. Mr. Trulson
appeals. We have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292.
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We “have
exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to
the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpreta-
tion thereof [by the Veterans Court] . . . and to interpret
constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent pre-
sented and necessary to a decision.” Id. § 7292(c). Absent
a constitutional challenge, we may not “review (A) a chal-
lenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law
or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.”
Id. § 7292(d)(2). We review the Veterans Court’s legal de-
terminations de novo. Wright v. Collins, 145 F.4th 1336,
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
On appeal, Mr. Trulson argues the Veterans Court le-
gally erred when it “misread[] the integrated scheme of
§ 1114” and its implementing regulations. Appellant’s
Br. 8.3 Under Mr. Trulson’s construction of the statute, the
Veterans Court would have concluded that he qualified for
3 Citations to Appellant’s Brief refer to the page
number in the CM/ECF header.
Case: 25-1915 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 04/29/2026

-- 3 of 6 --

TRULSON v. COLLINS 4
special monthly compensation at the § 1114(r)(2) rate so
long as he required a higher level of care. Id. We do not
agree.
As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether we
have jurisdiction. See Appellant’s Br. 4; Appellee’s
Br. 9–11. We have jurisdiction in cases where a veteran
raises a question of statutory interpretation “that was re-
lied upon by the [Veterans Court].” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a).
Mr. Trulson raised such an issue regarding § 1114(r) before
the Veterans Court. Appellant’s Br. 3, Trulson v. Collins,
No. 24-4063 (Vet. App. Dec. 22, 2024) (raising the § 1114(r)
rate issue generally); Appellant’s Reply Br. 5, No. 24-4063
(Vet. App. Apr. 11, 2025) (arguing Mr. Trulson’s required
level of care “qualifies him for the . . . (R) rat[e]s”); see Ap-
pellant’s Br. 8. Had the Veterans Court adopted Mr. Trul-
son’s construction that the need for a higher level of care
independently suffices to qualify a veteran for the
§ 1114(r)(2) rate, the Veterans Court, according to
Mr. Trulson, would not have been able to deny him special
monthly compensation at that rate. Appx. 6.
Special monthly compensation rates under § 1114(r)
are awarded as follows:
[I]f any veteran, otherwise entitled to compensation
authorized under subsection (o) of this section, at
the maximum rate authorized under subsection (p)
of this section, or at the intermediate rate author-
ized between the rates authorized under subsec-
tions (n) and (o) of this section and at the rate
authorized under subsection (k) of this section, is
in need of regular aid and attendance, then, in ad-
dition to such compensation—
(1) the veteran shall be paid a monthly aid
and attendance allowance at the rate of
$2,002; or
Case: 25-1915 Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 04/29/2026

-- 4 of 6 --

TRULSON v. COLLINS 5
(2) if the veteran, in addition to such need
for regular aid and attendance, is in need
of a higher level of care, such veteran shall
be paid a monthly aid and attendance al-
lowance at the rate of $2,983 in lieu of the
allowance authorized in clause (1) of this
subsection, if the Secretary finds that the
veteran, in the absence of the provision of
such care, would require hospitalization,
nursing home care, or other residential in-
stitutional care.
38 U.S.C. § 1114(r) (emphases added).
The statute’s plain language establishes that a veteran
qualifies for the § 1114(r)(2) rate only if he first qualifies
for a predicate special monthly compensation rate, regard-
less of his necessary level of care. The statute’s reference
to predicate special monthly compensation rates at the be-
ginning of § 1114(r) indicates that Congress intended for
those rates to serve as preconditions to the § 1114(r)(2)
rate. Mr. Trulson does not dispute that he fails to qualify
for the predicate special monthly compensation rates. See
Appellant’s Br. 8; Appx. 6; Appx. 18–19. Thus, under the
proper construction of § 1114(r), he does not qualify for a
higher special monthly compensation.
Mr. Trulson also raises arguments he failed to present
to the Veterans Court, for example, that he is entitled to an
earlier special monthly compensation effective date based
on 38 U.S.C. § 5110 and equitable tolling, Appellant’s
Br. 9, and that his caregiver is entitled to a retroactive sti-
pend under the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for
Family Caregivers, id. at 9–10. We lack jurisdiction over
issues not raised before the Veterans Court. Scott v.
McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1379–81 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Case: 25-1915 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 04/29/2026

-- 5 of 6 --

TRULSON v. COLLINS 6
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Trulson’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1915 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 04/29/2026

-- 6 of 6 --