Background
James W. Rorie appealed a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that affirmed a denial of an effective date before November 18, 1988, for service-connected tinea pedis. Rorie argued that a 1985 Veterans Affairs examination report should be interpreted as an informal claim for an increased disability rating under a repealed regulation. The Veterans Court found this argument forfeited because it was not raised in Rorie’s opening brief.
The court’s reasoning
The Federal Circuit explained that it lacks jurisdiction to review a factual determination or an application of law to the particular facts in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The court noted that even if the interpretation of the regulation implicated a legal issue, Rorie raised it only in the context of a theory he had forfeited at the Veterans Court. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Because Mr. Rorie’s arguments on appeal challenge the Veteran’s Court’s application of law to fact, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Rorie v. Collins, 25-1194 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2026)
What it means going forward
This dismissal reinforces the requirement that appellants must raise all arguments in their opening briefs to the Veterans Court to preserve them for Federal Circuit review. It clarifies that the Federal Circuit cannot intervene when an appeal challenges a lower court’s application of law to facts that was not properly preserved.