Terell J. Belger v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TERELL J. BELGER,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1034
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-3766, Judge Coral Wong Pi-
etsch.
______________________
Decided: May 28, 2025
______________________
J OHN D. N ILES , Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, ar-
gued for claimant-appellant.
J OSHUA D AVID T ULLY , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM J AMES G RIMALDI,
P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY ; RICHARD STEPHEN HUBER, D EREK
Case: 24-1034 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 05/28/2025

-- 1 of 8 --

BELGER v. COLLINS 2
SCADDEN, Office of General Counsel, United States Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before REYNA, SCHALL , and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals denying Terell Belger entitlement to earlier effective
dates for benefits on two service-connected claims. We dis-
miss Mr. Belger’s appeal.
BACKGROUND
Terell Belger (“Mr. Belger”) served in the U.S. Army
from April 1989 to June 1989, July 1992 to Septem-
ber 1992, December 1995 to June 1996, and October 2001
to September 2002. See Belger v. McDonough,
No. 22-3766, 2023 WL 4485335, at *1 (Vet. App. July 12,
2023). In August 2003, Mr. Belger submitted claims for
benefits for various service-connected conditions. Id. In
January 2004, a regional office (“RO”) of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (“VA”) granted Mr. Belger benefits for
“postoperative anterior surgical fusion C4-C5” and granted
various disability ratings related to this condition, one of
which was a 20% rating effective from September 24, 2002.
See id. On January 29, 2004, Mr. Belger filed a Notice of
Disagreement arguing that he was entitled to a 100% rat-
ing on the rating effective from September 24, 2002. See
id.; J.A. 13, 45. Mr. Belger’s Notice of Disagreement in-
cluded an informal claim for “an acquired psychiatric dis-
order.” See J.A. 13. On May 25, 2004, Mr. Belger filed an
additional informal claim for headaches. See id.
During a hearing in April 2006, the Board of Veterans’
Appeals (“Board”) determined that Mr. Belger had raised
new claims for headaches and vision problems. See id.;
J.A. 43. In March 2007, the Board determined that
Mr. Belger had claimed benefits for headaches and vision
Case: 24-1034 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 05/28/2025

-- 2 of 8 --

BELGER v. COLLINS 3
problems as secondary to his cervical spine disability
(“CSD”), i.e., his postoperative anterior surgical fusion C4-
C5. See Belger, 2023 WL 4485335, at *1. Accordingly, the
Board remanded for the RO to develop and adjudicate
these secondary conditions. See id. In March 2009, the RO
denied benefits for headaches and vision problems, but the
Board again remanded on the same two claims. See id.
In September 2015, Mr. Belger was diagnosed with “an
adjustment disorder with depressed mood,” and he re-
ported that this depression stemmed from his chronic pain
(i.e., due to his CSD). See id. On July 11, 2017, Mr. Belger
filed claims for multiple conditions, and, on July 15, 2017,
a VA examiner diagnosed him with chronic adjustment dis-
order. See id. In December 2017, the RO granted Mr. Bel-
ger benefits for headaches, chronic adjustment disorder,
and complex regional pain syndrome (“CRPS”), all as sec-
ondary to his CSD (characterized as “cervical degenerative
joint disease”), effective on the date that Mr. Belger filed
his most recent set of claims—July 11, 2017. See id. at *2;
J.A. 36.
In November 2018, a VA examiner diagnosed Mr. Bel-
ger with posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). See Bel-
ger, 2023 WL 4485335, at *2; J.A. 17. Accordingly, in
December 2018, the RO recharacterized Mr. Belger’s “psy-
chiatric disability,” which had previously been character-
ized as “chronic adjustment disorder,” as “PTSD with
persistent depressive disorder” (hereinafter, “PTSD”). See
J.A. 29.
In June 2019, the RO denied Mr. Belger higher ratings
and effective dates prior to July 11, 2017, for the benefits
granted in December 2017. See Belger, 2023 WL 4485335,
at *2. Mr. Belger appealed that decision to the Board. Id.
In January 2020, Mr. Belger submitted a letter to the
Board raising various arguments. J.A. 24–25. Relevant to
the present appeal, Mr. Belger asserted that the Board
should grant his benefits for headaches, PTSD, and CRPS
with an earlier effective date. Id. (citing 38 C.F.R.
Case: 24-1034 Document: 37 Page: 3 Filed: 05/28/2025

-- 3 of 8 --

BELGER v. COLLINS 4
§ 3.155(d)(2)). Mr. Belger argued that all three conditions
were components of (i.e., secondary to) his rating for his
CSD and thus should be granted the same effective date as
his CSD claim—September 24, 2002. Id.
In April 2020, the Board denied Mr. Belger an effective
date prior to July 11, 2017, for headaches, PTSD, and
CRPS. J.A. 26, 36. The Board also determined that
Mr. Belger’s CRPS was not associated with his CSD.
J.A. 37. Mr. Belger appealed the Board’s ruling to the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Vet-
erans Court”).
In February 2021, before the Veterans Court ruled on
Mr. Belger’s appeal, the parties entered a joint motion for
partial remand (“JMPR”). J.A. 41–57. In part, the JMPR
resolved various issues not relevant to the present appeal.
J.A. 41–57. The JMPR also provided that Mr. Belger could
present additional arguments not addressed in the JMPR
and required the Board to reexamine the evidence and con-
sider all material issues on record. J.A. 55. The Veterans
Court granted the JMPR, vacated the April 2020 Board de-
cision, and remanded for the Board to determine the effec-
tive dates of benefits for headaches, PTSD, and CRPS. See
Belger, 2023 WL 4485335, at *2.
In August 2021, on remand, the Board granted
Mr. Belger’s request for effective dates of September 24,
2002, for CRPS, but denied his request for that same effec-
tive date for headaches and PTSD. J.A. 15–19. The Board
explained that “the effective date of an award based on an
original claim for compensation benefits shall be the date
of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, which-
ever is later.” J.A. 15 (citing 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) and
38 C.F.R. § 3.400). Accordingly, the Board granted an ef-
fective date of January 29, 2004, for PTSD, because there
“is no indication from the record that the Veteran submit-
ted a written communication expressing an intent to seek
disability compensation for psychiatric symptoms [i.e.,
PTSD] prior to the January 2004 informal claim.” J.A. 17.
Case: 24-1034 Document: 37 Page: 4 Filed: 05/28/2025

-- 4 of 8 --

BELGER v. COLLINS 5
Similarly, the Board granted an effective date of May 25,
2004, for headaches, because “[t]he evidence otherwise es-
tablishes the Veteran has had headaches secondary to his
service-connected [CSD] since the date of his May 2004 in-
formal claim.” J.A. 19.
In December 2021, Mr. Belger moved for reconsidera-
tion, asserting that the Board failed to address his Janu-
ary 2020 letter’s argument that his headaches and PTSD,
as secondary conditions of his CSD, should be assigned the
same effective date as his CSD—September 24, 2002.
J.A. 63–64. In February 2022, the Board denied Mr. Bel-
ger’s motion for reconsideration. J.A. 21–23. The Board
determined that it had effectively addressed Mr. Belger’s
argument from his January 2020 letter. J.A. 22. The
Board noted that it had explained the requirement under
38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 that “an effective
date for an award based on an original claim shall be the
date of the receipt of the claim or the date entitlement
arose, whichever is later.” J.A. 22. The Board then ex-
plained that its determinations on headaches and PTSD as
secondary conditions looked to the dates of receipt of those
claims on May 25, 2004, and January 29, 2004, respec-
tively. J.A. 22. The Board concluded that the “essence of
[Mr. Belger’s] Motion is a disagreement with the manner
in which the Board weighed and evaluated the evidence.”
J.A. 22.
Mr. Belger appealed to the Veterans Court, arguing
that the Board had failed to consider his argument from his
January 2020 letter that he is entitled to an effective date
of at least September 24, 2002, for headaches and PTSD as
components of his CSD. See Belger, 2023 WL 4485335,
at *2. In July 2023, the Veterans Court affirmed, deciding
that Mr. Belger was precluded from arguing that the Board
was required to address the argument at issue from the
January 2020 letter. Id. at *3–4. The Veterans Court
found that Mr. Belger conceded that the argument from the
January 2020 letter was not addressed in the JMPR and
Case: 24-1034 Document: 37 Page: 5 Filed: 05/28/2025

-- 5 of 8 --

BELGER v. COLLINS 6
that he did not raise this argument on remand. Id. at *3.
Due to these facts, considering Mr. Belger’s argument on
appeal “would lead to precisely the type of piecemeal litiga-
tion that issue exhaustion is meant to prevent.” Id. Ac-
cordingly, the Veterans Court decided to “exercise its
discretion to decline to consider Mr. Belger’s arguments on
appeal.” Id.
The Veterans Court also observed that, regardless,
Mr. Belger’s argument lacked merit. Id. at *4. According
to the Veterans Court, primary and secondary conditions
need not receive the same effective date because 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.400 provides that an entitlement’s effective date is the
“date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose,
whichever is later.” Id. (quoting § 3.400) (cleaned up).
Thus, the Veterans Court concluded that the Board “cor-
rectly focused” on § 3.400. Id.
Mr. Belger appeals, arguing that the Veterans Court
legally erred in applying the doctrine of issue exhaustion
and in determining that the Board need not have ad-
dressed his secondary conditions argument from the Janu-
ary 2020 letter. Appellant Br. 3. The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs (“Secretary”) responds that we lack juris-
diction, under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, because Mr. Belger’s ap-
peal merely challenges the application of law to facts.
Appellee Br. 11–16.
D ISCUSSION
This court has “exclusive jurisdiction to review and de-
cide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regula-
tion or any interpretation thereof” by the Veterans Court.
38 U.S.C. § 7292(c); Rodenhizer v. McDonough, 124 F.4th
1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Unless an appeal from the
Veterans Court presents a constitutional issue, we “may
not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B)
a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of
a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
Case: 24-1034 Document: 37 Page: 6 Filed: 05/28/2025

-- 6 of 8 --

BELGER v. COLLINS 7
Generally, “[b]ecause the decision to invoke the doc-
trine of issue exhaustion is a discretionary one, its applica-
tion is largely a matter of application of law to fact” over
which we lack jurisdiction. Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d
1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, this jurisdictional
bar does not apply “to the extent that the issue raised in-
volves solely a legal interpretation.” Id.
Mr. Belger asserts that we have jurisdiction to review
his challenge to the Veterans Court’s decision to invoke the
doctrine of issue exhaustion because his appeal involves an
issue of legal interpretation. Appellant Reply Br. 11.
Mr. Belger characterizes his appeal as presenting a legal
question of whether, on remand after a joint motion for re-
mand (“JMR”) or JMPR, “the Board must address an argu-
ment that the appellant presented to the Board during its
prior proceedings irrespective of whether the parties iden-
tify it in the JMR/JMPR or the appellant reasserts it to the
Board on remand.” Appellant Br. 3.
Mr. Belger’s argument amounts to a challenge to the
Veterans Court’s application of law to facts. The Veterans
Court determined that Mr. Belger misread relevant case
law and the Board’s August 2021 decision on remand. Bel-
ger, 2023 WL 4485335 at *4. Contrary to Mr. Belger’s as-
sertions, the Veterans Court determined that the Board’s
analysis accounted for his argument from his January 2020
letter that the effective date of his claims for headaches and
PTSD should be based on the effective date of his CSD
claim. Id. The Veterans Court emphasized that the Board
followed 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 by as-
sessing the effective dates of his headaches and PTSD
claims based on “the date of receipt of the claim or the date
entitlement arose, whichever is later.” Id. (cleaned up).
Accordingly, the Veterans Court determined that the
Board based the effective dates for these two claims on the
dates of receipt of those claims on May 25, 2004, and Jan-
uary 29, 2004, respectively. Id. Thus, the Veterans Court
Case: 24-1034 Document: 37 Page: 7 Filed: 05/28/2025

-- 7 of 8 --

BELGER v. COLLINS 8
determined that the Board effectively addressed the merits
of Mr. Belger’s argument from his January 2020 letter. Id.
Accordingly, there is no legal question on appeal about
whether, in the context of a JMR or JMPR, the Board
should address an argument made by an appellant during
prior proceedings. This question presumes a fact pattern
in which the Board failed to address an argument made by
an appellant during prior proceedings. But, as explained,
the Veterans Court determined that, on the facts here, the
Board “correctly focused on” § 3.400, thereby effectively ad-
dressing the argument that Mr. Belger claims the Board
failed to address, i.e., that Mr. Belger should receive earlier
effective dates for headaches and PTSD based on the effec-
tive date of his CSD. Id.
Absent the legal question about the Board’s failure to
address an argument from a prior proceeding, Mr. Belger’s
appeal presents nothing more than a challenge to the Vet-
erans Court’s determination that the Board correctly de-
cided on the merits of the purportedly unaddressed
argument by “correctly focus[ing] on” § 3.400. See id. In
other words, Mr. Belger challenges the application of a reg-
ulation, § 3.400, to the facts underlying Mr. Belger’s claims
for headaches and PTSD as secondary conditions of his
CSD. Mr. Belger does not claim that his appeal presents a
constitutional issue, and we may not review a challenge to
a regulation as applied to the facts of a case. 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(d)(2). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over
Mr. Belger’s appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we dismiss Mr. Belger’s appeal.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1034 Document: 37 Page: 8 Filed: 05/28/2025

-- 8 of 8 --