Frank Limon v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FRANK LIMON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1107
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-1568, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: July 10, 2026
______________________
K ENNETH D OJAQUEZ, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka,
KS, argued for claimant-appellant.
G EOFFREY M. L ONG, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by MARTIN F. HOCKEY , J R., P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
BRETT SHUMATE; EVAN SCOTT G RANT , D EREK SCADDEN, Of-
fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet-
erans Affairs.
______________________
Case: 25-1107 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 07/10/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

LIMON v. COLLINS 2
Before P ROST , CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ROST , Circuit Judge.
Frank Limon appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) that af-
firmed in part and remanded in part a decision of the Board
of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). For the reasons below, we
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
The present appeal arises from Mr. Limon’s series of
claims for service connection for Ménière’s syndrome with
left-ear hearing loss.1 J.A. 2. As relevant here, Mr. Limon
filed a claim for Ménière’s syndrome in August 2006.
J.A. 13, 33. That claim was denied by a Department of Vet-
erans Affairs (“VA”) regional office (“RO”) in March 2007.
J.A. 14–17. Mr. Limon did not appeal that decision. See
J.A. 14–17, 33–34. Mr. Limon filed another claim for Mé-
nière’s syndrome in November 2011. J.A. 21. The RO de-
nied that claim in January 2013. J.A. 22–25, 34. Once
again, Mr. Limon did not appeal. J.A. 34.
Mr. Limon filed another claim for Ménière’s syndrome
in April 2021. J.A. 34. This time, the RO granted the claim
and assigned an April 2021 effective date. J.A. 26–28, 34.
The RO subsequently combined Mr. Limon’s Ménière’s
syndrome and left ear hearing loss claims into a claim for
1 Ménière’s syndrome—also referred to as Ménière’s
disease—“is a disorder of the inner ear that causes severe
dizziness (vertigo), ringing in the ears (tinnitus), hearing
loss, and a feeling of fullness or congestion in the ear. Mé-
nière’s disease usually affects only one ear, but in 15% to
25% of people with the disorder, both ears may be affected.”
Ménière’s Disease, Nat’l Inst. on Deafness and Other
Commc’n Disorders, https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/
menieres-disease (last visited July 7, 2026).
Case: 25-1107 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 07/10/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

LIMON v. COLLINS 3
a single disability. J.A. 32. Mr. Limon filed a Notice of
Disagreement seeking an earlier effective date for Mé-
nière’s syndrome with left-ear hearing loss. J.A. 29.
Before the Board, Mr. Limon argued that he was enti-
tled to an effective date prior to April 2021 for his condition.
J.A. 31. The Board disagreed and denied the appeal.
J.A. 35. Mr. Limon appealed that denial. Before the Vet-
erans Court, Mr. Limon argued that the appropriate effec-
tive date was August 2006—the date of one of his claims
for Ménière’s syndrome. J.A. 2. He asserted that the
Board had misinterpreted 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b) and improp-
erly overlooked medical records that came after the March
2007 and January 2013 rating decisions. J.A. 2.
The Veterans Court affirmed the portion of the Board’s
decision denying Mr. Limon’s request for an August 2006
effective date for Ménière’s syndrome. J.A. 4. But it deter-
mined that the Board had erred by failing to assess VA
medical evidence generated after the January 2013 rating
decision. J.A. 6. It thus remanded the claim for reevalua-
tion of Mr. Limon’s entitlement to a November 2011 effec-
tive date. J.A. 2–7. Mr. Limon moved for reconsideration
of the Veterans Court’s decision, which was denied.
J.A. 11. Mr. Limon timely appealed to this court.
D ISCUSSION
On appeal, Mr. Limon argues that the Veterans Court
misinterpreted 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b) and erred in finding
that his 2006 claim is not pending. Appellant’s Br. 11. The
government argues that we should dismiss this appeal be-
cause the Veterans Court’s decision is not final. Appellee’s
Br. 14. We agree with the government.
“This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions by the Vet-
erans Court is limited.” Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d
1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We generally “decline[] to re-
view non-final orders of the Veterans Court.” Ravin v.
McDonough, 107 F.4th 1357, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (cleaned
Case: 25-1107 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 07/10/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

LIMON v. COLLINS 4
up). And “[w]e have repeatedly held that the Veterans
Court’s remand decisions are typically non-final.” Id. Our
departure from the “strict rule of finality” occurs
only if three conditions are satisfied: (1) there must
have been a clear and final decision of a legal issue
that (a) is separate from the remand proceedings,
(b) will directly govern the remand proceedings or,
(c) if reversed by this court, would render the re-
mand proceedings unnecessary; (2) the resolution
of the legal issues must adversely affect the party
seeking review; and, (3) there must be a substan-
tial risk that the decision would not survive a re-
mand, i.e., that the remand proceeding may moot
the issue.
Williams v. Principi, 275 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(footnotes omitted). Mr. Limon argues that those condi-
tions are met here. Appellant’s Br. 8. We disagree. Be-
cause we conclude that the third condition is not met, we
do not reach the first two.
“In this case, as in many others, the question whether
we will review the remand order from the Veterans Court
comes down to the third factor set forth in Williams.” Don-
nellan v. Shinseki, 676 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(cleaned up). Our cases make clear that “the legal issue in
question must be one that would be effectively unreviewa-
ble at a later stage in the litigation.” Id. (citing Myore v.
Principi, 323 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Mr. Limon contends that the third Williams condition
is met because the Veterans Court’s decision as to the 2006
claim is now the law of the case—in other words, the issue
will be moot because the “Board is bound to the Veterans
Court’s ruling.” Appellant’s Br. 10–11. But even if the Vet-
erans Court were to adhere to the first ruling as the law of
the case after the Board completes the remand proceed-
ings, that ruling “will not, of course, in any way bind this
court.” Joyce v. Nicholson, 443 F.3d 845, 850 (Fed. Cir.
Case: 25-1107 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 07/10/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

LIMON v. COLLINS 5
2006). And, further, “[a]fter completion of the remand pro-
ceedings and the entry of a final judgment by the [Veterans
Court], the veteran may raise any objections to the judg-
ment that was entered, whether the errors arose from the
original [Veterans Court] decision or the second and final
decision.” Id. Indeed, the government agrees that “regard-
less of the outcome of the remand proceedings
. . . Mr. Limon will not be foreclosed from later arguing
that his effective date should be based on his August 2006
claim.” Appellee’s Br. 18. And “Mr. Limon agrees . . . that
if a subsequent appeal is available[,] this [c]ourt lacks ju-
risdiction.” Reply Br. 4. Mr. Limon thus fails to demon-
strate “a substantial risk that the decision would not
survive a remand.” Williams, 275 F.3d at 1364. Because
the present appeal does not satisfy the third condition set
forth by Williams, the Veterans Court’s decision is not yet
reviewable by this court.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Mr. Limon’s ap-
peal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
Case: 25-1107 Document: 41 Page: 5 Filed: 07/10/2026

-- 5 of 5 --