James v. Collins

Case: 25-1992 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 07/30/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

DAVID JAMES,

Claimant-Appellant v.

DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2025-1992 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 24-9382, Judge Margaret C. Bart- ley.

______________________ Decided: July 30, 2026 ______________________

DAVID JAMES, Lamesa, TX, pro se.

YARIV S. PIERCE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by GEOFFREY M. LONG, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE; Y. KEN LEE, ANDREW J. STEINBERG, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Case: 25-1992 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 07/30/2026 2 JAMES v. COLLINS

______________________

PER CURIAM.

David James is a veteran. S.A. 1 1. On November 3, 2023, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals issued a decision denying James’s request for an increased rating for his ser- vice-connected asthma and total disability based on indi- vidual employability. S.A. 8–17. On December 19, 2024, James filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”). S.A. 6. On May 15, 2025, the Veterans Court, in a single-judge decision, dismissed the appeal because James’s notice of appeal was untimely filed and he had not established that he was en- titled to equitable tolling. S.A. 1–4. On June 6, 2025, the Veterans Court entered judgment. S.A. 5. On June 16, the Veterans Court received James’s motion for a three-judge panel decision. S.A. 7. And on June 25, 2025, James filed his notice of appeal with this court. S.A. 7. The Veterans Court is yet to rule on the motion for a three-judge panel decision. S.A. 7.

The government asserts that remand is appropriate for the Veterans Court to consider the motion for a three- judge panel decision—which may establish that James is entitled to equitable tolling—in the first instance. Infor- mal Resp. Br. 11–14. We cannot consider and remand the appeal ourselves, however, because the motion for a three- judge panel decision renders the Veterans Court’s judg- ment non-final, depriving us of jurisdiction. Stone v. Im- migr. & Naturalization Servs., 514 U.S. 386, 392 (1995) (post-decision motions for further review render the under- lying order non-final for purposes of judicial review) (abro- gated on unrelated grounds); Allen v. Principi, 237 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[O]ur jurisdiction is limited to Case: 25-1992 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 07/30/2026 JAMES v. COLLINS 3 the review of final decisions of the Veterans Court.”) (em- phasis in original) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a)). We accord- ingly dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED COSTS

No costs.