Hooper v. Collins

Case: 26-1028 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 03/16/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SETH A. HOOPER, Claimant-Appellant v. DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1028 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 25-358, Judge Grant Jaquith. ______________________ Decided: March 16, 2026 ______________________ SETH A. HOOPER, Ocean, NJ, pro se.

ERIC P. BRUSKIN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT A. SHUMATE. ______________________ Before REYNA, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

Case: 26-1028 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 03/16/2026

2 HOOPER v. COLLINS

PER CURIAM.

Seth Hooper appeals pro se from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Vet- erans Court”), affirming the decision of the Board of Veter- ans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying Mr. Hooper earlier effective dates for his service-connected disability compensation for PTSD, migraines, and a combined disability rating of 100%. Hooper v. Collins, No. 25-0358, 2025 WL 2484992, at *1 (Vet. App. Aug. 29, 2025) (“Decision”). For the rea- sons below, we affirm-in-part and dismiss-in-part.

I. BACKGROUND Mr. Hooper served on multiple active-duty tours in the U.S. military between 2000 and 2011. See Decision at *1; see also Hooper v. McDonough, No. 2024-1262, 2024 WL 2064606, at *1 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Mr. Hooper filed claims for disability benefits in April 2006 for bilateral tinnitus and bilateral impaired hearing. Decision at *2; see also S. App’x 35; App’x 180. Mr. Hooper was evaluated by a Veterans Affairs (“VA”) examiner in May 2006 for his claims, where he also discussed his knee and dental con- cerns. Decision at *2. In October 2007, a VA regional office (“RO”) granted Mr. Hooper service connection for left ear hearing loss and left knee patellofemoral syndrome (“PFS”). Decision at *2; see also App’x 174–83.

Between January 2019 and February 2020, Mr. Hooper sought and was granted compensation in RO decisions for other conditions relevant to this appeal: (1) PTSD, App’x 110–13; (2) migraines, App’x 131–36; and (3) trau- matic brain injury (“TBI”), App’x 104–08. See Decision

1 We refer to the supplemental appendix filed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as “S. App’x,” ECF No. 28, and the appendix filed by Mr. Hooper as an attachment to his reply brief as “App’x,” ECF No. 31.

Case: 26-1028 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 03/16/2026

HOOPER v. COLLINS 3 at *2–3. Mr. Hooper was awarded a combined disability rating of 100% effective July 15, 2019. See S. App’x 42.

In May 2024, Mr. Hooper moved for reconsideration, arguing that the VA made five clear and unmistakable er- rors (“CUE”), including failing to notify Mr. Hooper of his 100% Combined Disability Rating award related to the January 21, 2020, rating decision and four errors in not as- signing an effective date of August 24, 2005, to Mr. Hooper’s disability ratings for TBI, for migraines, for PTSD, and for a 100% combined disability rating.

App’x 56; Decision at *3. On July 12, 2024, the RO denied all CUE grounds except for the TBI CUE claim, which it did not address. See S. App’x 82–87 (the “2024 RO CUE Decision”); Decision at *3 & n.3. In July 2024, Mr. Hooper filed a Notice of Disagreement with the RO decision, as- serting the same five CUE claims. Decision at *3; S. App’x 99.

The Board denied all of Mr. Hooper’s claims in the ap- peal of the 2024 RO CUE decision, indicating that it lacked jurisdiction over the TBI claim because it was not covered in the 2024 RO CUE Decision. See S. App’x 13–24; id. at 15. Mr. Hooper appealed to the Veterans Court, which affirmed the Board’s decision denying Mr. Hooper’s claims for earlier effective dates for migraine, PTSD, or a 100% disability rating. Decision at *5–8. The Board’s decision further explained that the TBI issue was subject to “a sep- arate claim stream” 2 and part of a different appeal to the

2 On February 13, 2020, Mr. Hooper filed a separate Notice of Disagreement, alleging the January 2020 RO de- cision (the “2020 RO Decision”) should have provided an effective date of August 24, 2005, for Mr. Hooper’s TBI dis- ability claim. See S. App’x 92. In the appeals that followed, the Veterans Court remanded to the Board to further ana- lyze Mr. Hooper’s TBI claim, and we dismissed Mr. Hooper’s appeal of that Veterans Court decision for lack of jurisdiction. Hooper v. McDonough, 2024 WL Case: 26-1028 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 03/16/2026

4 HOOPER v. COLLINS

Veterans Court. Decision at *4. Mr. Hooper then appealed to this court. S. App’x 29.

II. DISCUSSION “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 “have exclusive jurisdic- tion to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a deci- sion.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c); Wanless, 618 F.3d at 1336.

However, absent a constitutional issue, we lack jurisdiction to “review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” § 7292(d)(2). “In other words, while we can review questions of law, we cannot review applica- tions of law to fact.” Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

As an initial matter, Mr. Hooper’s appeal here arises out of the 2024 RO CUE Decision, which addressed his ser- vice-connected PTSD, migraines, and combined 100% disa- bility rating claims, but not his TBI claim. See Decision at *4 & n.3. Because the TBI claim has been the subject of a separate claim stream arising out of the separate 2020

2064606, at *1–2 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2024). On October 30, 2024, the RO denied Mr. Hooper’s claim for an earlier ef- fective date for service connection for his TBI claim.

S. App’x 98. In May 2025, the Veterans Court again re- manded the TBI effective date issue to the Board. Hooper v. Collins, 2025 WL 1546948, at *5–6 (Vet. App. May 30, 2025). The Secretary indicates that Mr. Hooper has ap- pealed the subsequent Board decision denying an earlier effect date for his TBI claim, which was pending before the Veterans Court as of December 2, 2025. See Secretary’s Br. 15 n.2.

Case: 26-1028 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 03/16/2026

HOOPER v. COLLINS 5

RO Decision, we do not have jurisdiction to hear his appeal with respect to his TBI benefits. Decision at *1 n.1; id. at *4; S. App’x 15; Howard v. Gober, 220 F.3d 1341, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he Board has not yet rendered a final decision on the CUE claim . . . . Accordingly, the [Veterans Court] correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the CUE claim.”) (citing Ledford v. West, 136 F.3d 776, 779 (Fed. Cir 1998)). Thus, as part of this appeal, we lack ju- risdiction to hear those issues in Mr. Hooper’s appeal chal- lenging the treatment of his TBI claim, including his claim that the VA violated his due process rights by providing insufficient notice. See Appellant’s Br. 14–16. We proceed to address below the issues in Mr. Hooper’s appeal regard- ing his PTSD, migraines, and combined 100% disability rating claims.

Mr. Hooper first argues that the Veterans Court failed to apply 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) to his PTSD, migraines, and combined 100% disability ratings claims. Appellant’s Br. 5–6; Appellant’s Reply Br. 6–8. Section 3.156(c) re- quires the VA to reconsider a claim if “at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, [ ] VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) (emphasis added). Mr. Hooper contends that 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) required the VA to conclude that his claims for PTSD and migraines should receive an effective date of August 24, 2005. Appellant’s Br. 6. However, the Veterans Court held that section 3.156(c) was inapplicable because “the Board plausibly found that the PTSD and mi- graine claims were first submitted in 2019” and there was no earlier decision on these claims to reconsider. Decision at *7. To the extent that Mr. Hooper challenges the Veter- ans Court’s conclusion that section 3.156(c) is inapplicable when there is no prior decision to reconsider, the Veterans Court’s legal interpretation is consistent with the language of the regulation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) (applying only “after VA issues a decision on a claim”); see Blubaugh Case: 26-1028 Document: 38 Page: 6 Filed: 03/16/2026

6 HOOPER v. COLLINS

v. McDonald, 773 F.3d 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (ex- plaining that “[s]ection 3.156(c) only applies when VA re- ceives official service department records that were unavailable at the time that VA previously decided a claim for benefits and those records lead VA to award a benefit that was not granted in the previous decision.”) (quoting New and Material Evidence, 70 Fed. Reg. 35,388, 35,388 (June 20, 2005)) (original emphasis removed and emphasis added). We thus reject Mr. Hooper’s challenge to the Vet- erans Court’s interpretation of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c).

Mr. Hooper next argues that the Veterans Court mis- applied Shea v. Wilkie, 926 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019), spe- cifically contending that 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (2005) required the VA to find that his April 2006 claim encom- passed Mr. Hooper’s claims on appeal here. Appellant’s Br. 6–8; Appellant’s Reply Br. 8–9. Specifically, Mr. Hooper contends that a VA form he submitted in April 2006 cited a July 2005 demobilization exam supporting his earlier effective date claims. Appellant’s Br. 7. However, the Veterans Court did not ignore Shea but instead con- cluded that the Board did not err in finding that Mr. Hooper “did not submit the July 2005 demobilization physical examination report,” and that “the Board’s finding that neither migraines nor [PTSD] was reasonably encom- passed within the expanded April 2006 claim is plausibly supported by the evidence of record.” Decision at *5–6; see id. at *5, *7 (describing Shea). We lack jurisdiction to re- view this application of law to fact.

Third, Mr. Hooper argues that the Veterans Court vio- lated a “duty to adjudicate all claims reasonably related to that in-service injury,” citing a Veterans Court opinion, DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45 (2011). Appellant’s Br. 9–10; Appellant’s Reply Br. 9–10. However, no duty to assist can arise if the VA does not “comprehend[]” the con- dition on which the claim is based. Sellers v. Wilkie, 965 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020). As the Veterans Court explained, Mr. Hooper’s argument—that the VA should be required to sympathetically read any disabilities Case: 26-1028 Document: 38 Page: 7 Filed: 03/16/2026

HOOPER v. COLLINS 7 linked to the same service event—“conflicts with” our prec- edent in Sellers, Decision at *6, which holds that the VA’s duty to assist is “trigger[ed]” only by VA’s “receipt of a for- mal claim that identifies the medical condition for which benefits are sought,” Sellers, 965 F.3d at 1338.

Mr. Hooper’s proposed rule would undermine our holdings that “a veteran’s formal claim is required to identify the sickness, disease, or injuries for which compensation is sought, at least at a high level of generality.” Id. (citing Shea, 926 F.3d at 1362). Moreover, while Mr. Hooper al- leges that the Veterans Court’s failure to apply DeLisio “created constitutional violations of unlawful delay and claim fragmentation,” Appellant’s Br. 20, delay due to re- quiring a veteran to identify his injury does not violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Mansfield v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Fourth, Mr. Hooper contends that both the Board and the Veterans Court erred by substituting their “own medi- cal judgment in place of uncontroverted medical evidence and binding favorable findings,” in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 5104A. Appellant’s Br. 10–12; Appellant’s Reply Br. 10– 11. Mr. Hooper did not raise any such challenge before the Veterans Court, so we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Belcher v. West, 214 F.3d 1335, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[The veteran’s] issue was not addressed by or presented to the [Veterans Court]. Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to consider it.”).

Fifth, Mr. Hooper argues that the Veterans Court “acted arbitrarily and capriciously, in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) and § 7261(a)(3)(A) by affirming the VA’s incon- sistent application of the CUE standard” to his claims be- cause the VA eventually granted CUE on his tinnitus claim but not on the other claims, such as migraines and PTSD, that are the focus of this appeal. Appellant’s Br. 12–14; Appellant’s Reply Br. 11–13. Mr. Hooper’s appeal here is focused on the Veterans Court’s “application” of these stat- utes to the facts of his case. Appellant’s Br. 12–14. While Mr. Hooper invokes 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) and Case: 26-1028 Document: 38 Page: 8 Filed: 03/16/2026

8 HOOPER v. COLLINS

§ 7261(a)(3)(A), he does not meaningfully challenge the Veterans Court’s limited interpretations of the statutes.

See Decision at *5, *7. To the extent Mr. Hooper suggests the statutes together require the Veterans Court to “apply the same standard consistently to similarly situated claims,” that rule was not violated because the claims were not similarly situated. Appellant’s Br. 13; cf. Serv. Women’s Action Network v. Sec’y of Veterans Affs., 815 F.3d 1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“find[ing] the distinction be- tween [military sexual trauma]-based PTSD and non-[mil- itary sexual trauma]-based PTSD rational.”). Here, because Mr. Hooper challenges the Veterans Court’s appli- cation of the CUE rules to the facts of his claims and fails to meaningfully challenge any statutory interpretation of the Veterans Court, we lack jurisdiction over this challenge by Mr. Hooper.

Finally, Mr. Hooper challenges the VA’s calculation of his 100% combined disability rating and the assigned effec- tive dates under 38 U.S.C. § 1155 and 38 C.F.R. § 4.25, Ap- pellant’s Br. 18–19; Appellant’s Reply Br. 14–15. We do not have jurisdiction to review this argument on appeal be- cause “the factual findings of when a disability was claimed or service connection established are not subject to our re- view.” Butler v. Shinseki, 603 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Hooper’s remaining argu- ments, including, but not limited to, the arguments raised in his Memorandum in Lieu of Oral Argument, ECF No. 36, and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea- sons, we affirm-in-part and dismiss-in-part.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, DISMISSED-IN-PART COSTS No costs.