Background
Ellen J. Pritchard and Linda Kay Ulik-Pritchard each sought recognition as veteran Randall W. Pritchard’s surviving spouse for dependency and indemnity compensation. The veteran married Ms. Pritchard in 1982, separated from her in the 1980s, married Ms. Ulik-Pritchard in 2003, and died in 2011. After earlier proceedings, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals found that Ms. Pritchard’s marriage was valid and that her separation from the veteran fell within the statutory exception to the continuous-cohabitation requirement because it resulted from his alleged sexual abuse of her daughter.
The Veterans Court vacated that decision and remanded for the Board to reconcile conflicting evidence about when Ms. Pritchard learned of the alleged abuse, when and why the couple separated, and whether the abuse occurred. Ms. Pritchard appealed, asserting that the Veterans Court had misinterpreted governing law, displayed bias, and violated her due-process rights. She also raised allegations concerning Ms. Ulik-Pritchard and an attorney who had represented Ms. Ulik-Pritchard.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Ms. Pritchard did not identify a specific statute or regulation that the Veterans Court had misinterpreted, and her arguments instead challenged factual matters or the application of law to facts. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), the Federal Circuit generally cannot review those issues absent a genuine constitutional question.
The court held that Ms. Pritchard’s allegations of bias, prejudice, and denial of due process were constitutional in name only because they amounted to additional factual assertions and disagreement with the Veterans Court’s result. The court also lacked jurisdiction because the Veterans Court’s remand order was nonfinal. The limited exception for a clear and final decision of a legal issue did not apply because Ms. Pritchard identified no such ruling.
Key Takeaways
- The Federal Circuit cannot review Veterans Court factual findings or applications of law to fact merely because an appellant characterizes the dispute as statutory or constitutional.
- A due-process label does not create appellate jurisdiction when the underlying argument is only that the claimant should have prevailed on the facts.
- The Veterans Court’s remand was nonfinal, and the exception permitting review of certain conclusively resolved legal issues did not apply.
Why It Matters
The nonprecedential decision reinforces the narrow scope of Federal Circuit review in veterans-benefits cases. An appellant must identify a reviewable legal or genuinely constitutional issue; factual disagreements, misconduct allegations unrelated to a Veterans Court legal determination, and disputes about evidentiary conclusions are insufficient.
The competing surviving-spouse claims remain unresolved. Both claimants may submit additional evidence and argument before the Board on remand, and Ms. Pritchard may later appeal an adverse legal determination if the case returns to the Veterans Court.