Jimmy Dean Baldwin v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

# NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

JIMMY DEAN BALDWIN,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee.

2010-7147

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in case no. 08-4306, Judge Kenneth B.
Kramer.

ON MOTION

Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.

ORDER

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="BALDWIN v. DVA" -->

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the
requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss Jimmy
Dean Baldwin's appeal. Baldwin opposes.

Baldwin appealed to the United States Court of Ap-
peals for Veterans Claims, challenging a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals that denied his request to
reopen a previously denied service-connection claim for a
chronic foot condition. The Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims vacated the Board's decision and remanded the
matter for readjudication. Baldwin appealed.

The Secretary argues that this court lacks jurisdiction
because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims decision
was not final and does not meet the standard for appeal-
ability of nonfinal decisions set forth in Williams v. Prin-
cipi, 275 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We agree.

This court generally does not review nonfinal deci-
sions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Depar-
ture from this rule is justified only if three conditions are
fulfilled:

(1) there must have been a clear and final decision
of a legal issue that (a) is separate from the re-
mand proceedings, (b) will directly govern the re-
mand proceedings or, (c) if reversed by this court,
would render the remand proceedings unneces-
sary; (2) the resolution of the legal issues must
adversely affect the party seeking review; and, (3)
there must be a substantial risk that the decision
would not survive a remand, i.e., that the remand
proceeding may moot the issue.

Id. at 1364 (footnotes omitted).

Because the requirements of Williams are not satis-
fied, the renewed order is not sufficiently final for the

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="BALDWIN v. DVA" -->

purposes of our review. If the Court of Appeals for Veter-
ans Claims issues an adverse final decision at a later
date, Baldwin may thereafter appeal that decision to this
court. Thus, we dismiss.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary's motions are granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

APR 0 5 2011

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Jimmy Dean Baldwin

Richard P. Schroeder, Esq.

$20

Issued As A Mandate:

APR 0 5 2011

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
APR 05 2011

JAN HORBALY
CLERK