Eugene Costello v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

EUGENE COSTELLO,
Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________

2019-2317
______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 18-3462, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith.
______________________

Decided: December 23, 2020
______________________

K
ENNETH M. CARPENTER, Law Offices of Carpenter
Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.

BORISLAV KUSHNIR, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by J
EFFREY B. CLARK, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD,
ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.; MARTIE ADELMAN, Y.
Case: 19-2317 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 12/23/2020

COSTELLO v. WILKIE
2
KEN LEE, Office of General Counsel, United States Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________

Before WALLACH, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
WALLACH, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, Eugene Costello, appeals a decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
Court”) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals that denied Mr. Costello’s request to revise a Decem-
ber 1965 rating decision. Costello v. Wilkie, No. 18-3462,
2019 WL 2261275, at *4 (Vet. App. May 28, 2019); see
J.A. 16 (Judgment); see also J.A. 27 (1965 Rating Decision),
86–104 (Board Decision). Mr. Costello failed to present to
the Veterans Court the sole issue he now raises on appeal—
namely, “[t]he correct interpretation of the phrase ‘recog-
nized as symptomatic of brain trauma’” as used in Diagnos-
tic Code 8045 of 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a (1965). Appellant’s
Br. 11. Compare id. at 1, 3–11, with J.A. 105–16 (Mr. Cos-
tello’s Brief to the Veterans Court). See In re DBC, 545
F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“It is well-established
that a party generally may not challenge an agency deci-
sion on a basis that was not presented to the agency.”). Ac-
cordingly, Mr. Costello’s appeal is
DISMISSED
Case: 19-2317 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 12/23/2020