Hill v. Collins

Case: 24-1769 Document: 93 Page: 1 Filed: 05/11/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DONALD CARLYLE HILL, Claimant-Appellant v. DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2024-1769 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 20-1576, Judge William S. Green- berg. ______________________ Decided: May 11, 2026 ______________________ DONALD C. HILL, JR., Palm Desert, CA, argued pro se.

AUGUSTUS GOLDEN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre- sented by MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE; MATTHEW ALBANESE, DEREK SCADDEN, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Case: 24-1769 Document: 93 Page: 2 Filed: 05/11/2026

2 HILL v. COLLINS

______________________ Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Donald Carlyle Hill appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) dismissing his appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) for lack of jurisdiction.

S.A. 1–2. 1 The Veterans Court dismissed Hill’s appeal be- cause it concluded that the Board did not render a final de- cision adverse to Hill that would afford it jurisdiction to review the decision pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a).

The Board’s order that was appealed to and dismissed by the Veterans Court granted one claim, remanded four claims, referred two claims for initial adjudication, and dis- missed two claims that it concluded Hill voluntarily dis- missed. S.A. 22–23. “Our case law and [§] 7104(d)(2) define a Board decision as including an order granting ap- propriate relief or denying relief.” Kirkpatrick v. Nichol- son, 417 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Board’s remand and referral determinations in this case are there- fore not “decisions” which confer jurisdiction to the Veter- ans Court within the meaning of § 7252(a). See id. at 1364– 65. Furthermore, the Board’s grant of one of Hill’s claims is not “adverse” to him such that the Veterans Court could review that claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a). And finally, the Veterans Court’s determination that Hill failed to ar- gue that the Board improperly dismissed two claims, and therefore abandoned those claims and arguments, is an is- sue that this court lacks jurisdiction to review. See Andre

1“S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed by the government, filed at ECF 31.

Case: 24-1769 Document: 93 Page: 3 Filed: 05/11/2026

HILL v. COLLINS 3

v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[W]e lack jurisdiction to consider [a] challenge to [an] abandon- ment ruling.”). We accordingly affirm the Veterans Court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.