Skip to content
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Home / Decisions / United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit / Stiles v. Collins
Fed. Cir.

Stiles v. Collins

June 23, 2026 ·24-2252 ·Panel Decision ·TARANTO · By Raj Patel

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court's dismissal of an appeal regarding unadjudicated disability claims. The court held that the Board of Veterans' Appeals had not issued a final decision on the specific claims for vertigo and sleep apnea, leaving the Veterans Court without jurisdiction to review the matter.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:14
Download

Key takeaways

  • Holding: The Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the Board's remand order was not a final decision on a benefit claim.
  • Vote: Panel Decision
  • Practical effect: Veterans must pursue unadjudicated claims through the regional office and Board process rather than seeking a direct directive from the Veterans Court to force a referral. This ruling reinforces that remand orders are not final decisions subject to appellate review.

Background

Mark Stiles, a veteran, filed claims for service-connected disability benefits for nasal sinus septoplasty, vertigo, and sleep apnea. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals remanded the case for further development regarding chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis but did not explicitly address the vertigo and sleep apnea claims. Stiles argued the Board had a regulatory duty to refer these unadjudicated claims to the regional office. The Veterans Court dismissed his appeal, ruling that the remand order was not a reviewable decision under the statute.

The court’s reasoning

The Federal Circuit concluded that the Veterans Court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction because the 2019 Board Decision was a remand, not a final decision granting or denying benefits. The court noted that the statute grants jurisdiction only to review decisions of the Board, and a remand does not qualify. The court further determined that even if the Veterans Court had jurisdiction, Stiles failed to demonstrate any prejudice or harmful error, as he could still pursue the unadjudicated claims through the standard regional office process.

What it means going forward

Veterans must pursue unadjudicated claims through the regional office and Board process rather than seeking a direct directive from the Veterans Court to force a referral. This ruling reinforces that remand orders are not final decisions subject to appellate review.

Civil Social Security

On this page

Background The court’s reasoning What it means going forward

Share

Related from this court

Jul 17, 2026 Kelly v. United States Jul 17, 2026 Schindler v. Squires Jul 16, 2026 4DD Holdings, LLC v. United States Jul 16, 2026 Bee v. United States
Do It For The Caselaw

Just Do It For the Caselaw!

Site

  • Mission
  • The Anchors
  • Editorial Process
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Contact

Read & Listen

  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • The Weekly Brief

Follow

© 2026 Do It For The Caselaw. Not legal advice.