Frederick C. Fermin v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FREDERICK C. FERMIN,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2020-2110
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-5421, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: January 5, 2021
______________________
FREDERICK C. FERMIN , San Antonio, TX, pro se.
VIJAYA SURAMPUDI, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
JEFFREY B. CLARK , ELIZABETH M ARIE H OSFORD , R OBERT
EDWARD K IRSCHMAN , JR.; M EGHAN ALPHONSO , BRIAN D.
G RIFFIN , Office of General Counsel, United States Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 20-2110 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 01/05/2021

-- 1 of 7 --

FERMIN v. WILKIE 2
______________________
Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and M OORE, Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
Frederick Fermin appeals from the decision of the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans
Court”) remanding Fermin’s claim to the Board of Veter-
ans’ Appeals (“the Board”) for readjudication. See Fermin
v. Wilkie, No. 19-5421, 2020 WL 3422153 (Vet. App. June
23, 2020) (“Decision”). Because we lack jurisdiction to con-
sider the issues raised by Fermin, we dismiss the appeal.
BACKGROUND
Fermin served on active duty in the United States
Army from March 1941 to September 1945 and from May
1946 to February 1947. During his second period of ser-
vice, Fermin received 10 electric shock treatments at Wil-
liam Beaumont Army Medical Center. He was medically
discharged from the Army in January 1947 for “schizo-
phrenic reaction; unclassified; chronic; severe.” In January
1981, Fermin was granted a 100% disability rating for post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In 1993, the regional of-
fice (“RO”) denied his separate claim of service connection
for alcoholism, finding that it was not related to his service-
connected schizophrenia, and Fermin did not appeal the
decision.
In September 2007, Fermin was granted special
monthly compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(l)
based on his psychiatric condition. The rating decision
granted an effective date of May 16, 2006, which Fermin
did not appeal. SMC is a higher rate of compensation avail-
able in special circumstances, such as when a veteran’s dis-
ability requires aid and attendance by another person. See
38 U.S.C. § 1114(k)–(s). In some circumstances, the Secre-
tary may award a precise rate of SMC or may choose an
intermediate rate between the various SMC levels. See id.
Case: 20-2110 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 01/05/2021

-- 2 of 7 --

FERMIN v. WILKIE 3
§ 1114(p). In December 2011, Fermin was granted a sepa-
rate 10% disability rating for right leg radiculopathy with
an effective date of December 12, 2011, and SMC under
38 U.S.C. § 1114(p) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(f)(3) at a rate in-
termediate to the rates prescribed in §§ 1114(l) and (m).
In September 2015, the RO denied Fermin’s claim for
service connection for brain damage, including memory
loss and fatigue, due to the electric shock therapy that he
received during service. In December 2017, he elected to
have his appeal heard under the Rapid Appeals Moderni-
zation Program (“RAMP”) created after passage of the Vet-
erans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub.
L. No. 115-55, 131 Stat. 1105 (2017). Fermin’s appeal via
RAMP was denied in January 2018, and he appealed to the
Board the same month, seeking to submit new evidence.
In July 2019, the Board denied entitlement to compen-
sation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for brain damage due to elec-
tric shock treatment. The Board observed that the electric
shock treatment that Fermin received was administered at
a military facility during service, and the Board held that
the Department of Veterans Affairs lacks jurisdiction over
Fermin’s claim because he did not receive his treatment at
a VA facility. The Board also denied Fermin’s claim for en-
titlement to an earlier effective date for SMC. The Board
noted that Fermin did not meet the requirements of SMC
at the rate intermediate between §§ 1114(l) and (m) until
December, 2011, when he was awarded a 10% disability
rating for his right leg radiculopathy and his additional in-
dependent service-connected disabilities met the 50% com-
bined percentage under the applicable combined ratings
table. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. Finally, the Board denied Fer-
min’s request to reopen his 1993 claim of service connection
for alcoholism based on new evidence, finding that no new
evidence that is material to his claim has been added to the
file since the RO’s decision. Fermin appealed to the Veter-
ans Court.
Case: 20-2110 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 01/05/2021

-- 3 of 7 --

FERMIN v. WILKIE 4
As an initial matter, the Veterans Court determined
that Fermin’s request to reopen his 1993 claim for alcohol-
ism, which Fermin now claims as alcohol poisoning, was
abandoned because he presented no argument on appeal.
Decision, 2020 WL 3422153 at *1 n.1. With respect to Fer-
min’s claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for
brain damage due to electric shock treatment, the court
noted that Fermin explicitly abandoned the claim he was
pursuing under § 1151 in his reply brief and instead chal-
lenged the Board’s denial of service connection for brain
damage. Id. at *1 n.2. The court determined that it lacked
jurisdiction over the service connection claim “because it is
not part of the issue on appeal.” Id. Finally, with respect
to Fermin’s request for an earlier effective date for SMC,
the court held that the Board failed to provide an adequate
statement of reasons for denying Fermin’s claim for an ear-
lier effective date. Id. at *4. Specifically, the court found
that the Board failed to acknowledge certain records from
January 2004 that Fermin alleged would have demon-
strated entitlement to SMC from September 2003 and ser-
vice connection for arthritis based on a cumulative 170%
disability rating for his various orthopedic disabilities. Id.
Accordingly, the court remanded to the Board for consider-
ation of the 2004 records.
Fermin appealed.
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited. We may review a decision of the Veterans
Court with respect to a rule of law or interpretation of a
statute or regulation relied on by the Veterans Court in its
decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). However, except with re-
spect to constitutional issues, we may not review chal-
lenges to factual determinations or challenges to the
application of a law or regulation to the facts of a case.
§ 7292(d)(2).
Case: 20-2110 Document: 50 Page: 4 Filed: 01/05/2021

-- 4 of 7 --

FERMIN v. WILKIE 5
On appeal, Fermin makes three principal arguments.
First, Fermin asks this court to grant an earlier effective
date for SMC and a 170% disability rating for arthritis
based on the 2004 records. Second, Fermin asks us to grant
service connection for his brain damage claim. And third,
Fermin asks us to grant service connection for acute alco-
hol poisoning.
The government responds that we lack jurisdiction to
grant the relief that Fermin seeks. Specifically, with re-
spect to Fermin’s request for an earlier effective date for
SMC, the government argues that we lack jurisdiction be-
cause the remand order of the Veterans Court is not a final
judgment. With respect to Fermin’s disability claims for
brain damage and alcohol poisoning, the government ar-
gues that the Veterans Court’s determination that those
arguments have been abandoned is a factual issue over
which we lack jurisdiction.
We agree with the government in all respects. With
respect to Fermin’s request for an earlier effective date for
SMC, although the statute granting us jurisdiction over de-
cisions of the Veterans Court does not expressly limit our
review to final decisions of that court, “we have nonetheless
‘generally declined to review non-final orders of the Veter-
ans Court.’” Williams v. Principi, 275 F.3d 1361, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Adams v. Principi, 256 F.3d 1318,
1320 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). In some circumstances, we may ex-
ercise jurisdiction over a remand decision of the Veterans
Court where (1) there was a clear and final decision of a
legal issue that is separate from the remand proceedings
that will directly govern the remand proceedings or, if re-
versed by this court, would render the remand proceedings
unnecessary; (2) the resolution of legal issues by the Veter-
ans Court adversely affects the party seeking review; and,
(3) there is a substantial risk that the decision would not
survive a remand, i.e., that the remand proceeding may
moot the issue. Id. In this case, the remand decision of the
Case: 20-2110 Document: 50 Page: 5 Filed: 01/05/2021

-- 5 of 7 --

FERMIN v. WILKIE 6
Veterans Court does not satisfy any, let alone all, of these
conditions.
Here, the Veterans Court remanded Fermin’s claim
“for the Board to address the potentially favorable January
2004 record in the first instance.” Decision, 2020 WL
3422153, at *4. The order does not address or resolve a
legal issue, and to the extent that it vacated the Board’s
denial of an earlier effective date for SMC, the order oper-
ates in Fermin’s favor. Finally, there is no risk that the
decision will not survive remand, as Fermin may appeal
any decision after the Board has considered the 2004 rec-
ords. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to address this is-
sue.
We also agree with the government that we lack juris-
diction over Fermin’s brain damage and alcohol poisoning
claims. Determinations by the Veterans Court that a party
has waived an argument generally fall outside our jurisdic-
tion. See Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2002). Here, the Veterans Court determined that Fermin
abandoned his claim to reopen his earlier claim for alcohol-
ism because he failed to present any argument on the issue
to the court and that Fermin expressly abandoned his
claim for brain damage under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 in his reply
brief. Moreover, even if these claims had not been aban-
doned, we would lack jurisdiction anyway, as neither de-
termination involves the interpretation of a statute or
regulation, or otherwise falls within any of the other cate-
gories defining our jurisdiction to review decisions of the
Veterans Court enumerated in 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Accord-
ingly, we agree that we lack jurisdiction to review the deci-
sion of the Veterans Court.
Finally, we note that Fermin also requests that we cor-
rect alleged inaccuracies in VA rating decisions regarding
his service records. But because Fermin’s request does not
relate to any alleged error in the decision of the Veterans
Court, we lack jurisdiction to address this issue. To the
Case: 20-2110 Document: 50 Page: 6 Filed: 01/05/2021

-- 6 of 7 --

FERMIN v. WILKIE 7
extent that Fermin believes that the alleged inaccuracies
caused error in the adjudication of his claims, he may pur-
sue his allegations through the ordinary channels for adju-
dicating benefits claims.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Fermin’s remaining arguments
but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 20-2110 Document: 50 Page: 7 Filed: 01/05/2021

-- 7 of 7 --