Patrick J. Tyson v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PATRICK J. TYSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1443
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00734-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before D YK, P ROST , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
The United States moves to summarily affirm the final
judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dis-
missing Patrick J. Tyson’s complaint. Mr. Tyson opposes
the motion and asks this court for “an indicative ruling
stating that it would grant leave to amend the complaint if
the case is remanded by the Federal Circuit.” ECF No. 7
Case: 25-1443 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 03/26/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

TYSON v. US 2
at 1; see also ECF No. 8 at 1 (asking this court to “grant
leave to amend [his complaint] if the case is remanded by
the Federal Circuit”).
Mr. Tyson was honorably discharged from the Navy in
1992. After discharge, Mr. Tyson applied to the Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs (DVA) under Title 38 of the
United States Code, for disability benefits for service-con-
nected injuries. He has received benefits with a 100% dis-
ability rating since 2008 and has received special monthly
compensation based on Housebound Status or Permanent
Need for Regular Aid and Attendance since 2023.
In May 2024, he filed suit at the Court of Federal
Claims seeking to “grant and or compel” the “correct statu-
tory monthly compensation Payments from Veteran Af-
fairs, as well ALL retired Combat pay from the Department
of [D]efense.” Appx9, ECF No. 5. Specifically, he argued
he should receive “the Higher Special Monthly Compensa-
tion for, wartime Total disability, Housebound, Special Aid
and Attendance, Combat Retired Pay (CRDP), Combat-Re-
lated Special Compensation (CRSC), of which [he] should
have been automatically assessed[.]” Appx8.
In December 2024, the Court of Federal Claims
granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of ju-
risdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. It explained that Congress created an ex-
clusive scheme for handling claims relating to service ben-
efits through the DVA and then the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims, which excludes jurisdiction
in the Court of Federal Claims. It also concluded that Mr.
Tyson had failed to state a claim for relief for CRDP and
CRSC because he lacked military retiree status.
Summary affirmance is appropriate because dismissal
was “so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substan-
tial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.”
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that any
Case: 25-1443 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 03/26/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

TYSON v. US 3
challenge to the handling of his DVA benefits claims lies
outside of its jurisdiction. See Prestidge v. United States,
611 F. App’x 979, 982–83 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (concluding that
the remedial scheme to handle veterans’ benefits claims
precluded Tucker Act jurisdiction). It was also clearly cor-
rect that, in the absence of military retiree status, Mr. Ty-
son could not receive CRDP or CRSC pay. See 10 U.S.C.
§§ 1413a(c), 1414(a)(1) (limiting pay to “retiree[s]”). We
deny the request to remand because Mr. Tyson’s proposed
amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies that bar
relief in the Court of Federal Claims.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The United States’s motion is granted. The judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is af-
firmed.
(2) All other pending motions are denied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
March 26, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1443 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 03/26/2025

-- 3 of 3 --