Background
Eric Eriksmoen appealed a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision that denied him service connection for his lower spine disability. The Veterans Court appeal was No. 24-1947, decided by Judge Amanda L. Meredith. The Federal Circuit’s disposition is expressly nonprecedential.
Before the Federal Circuit, Eriksmoen limited his request for review. His opening brief asked the court to review the Veterans Court’s decision only “insofar as it misapplied the law with respect to harmless error.” His reply brief also stated that he had not raised a constitutional issue. The appeal therefore did not present a broader challenge to the merits of the service-connection denial or a constitutional claim.
Kenneth Dojaquez of Carpenter Chartered argued for Eriksmoen. Sosun Bae of the Justice Department’s Commercial Litigation Branch argued for the Secretary, with additional government representatives listed in the opinion.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Chief Judge Moore’s opinion explained that 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) bars the court from reviewing “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Because Eriksmoen sought review of how the Veterans Court applied harmless-error law in his case, the court concluded that it could not provide the requested review.
Eriksmoen attempted to invoke the court’s “case jurisdiction,” relying on Willsey v. Peake, 535 F.3d 1368, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2008), for the proposition that a contention that the Veterans Court applied the wrong legal rule is a prima facie legal claim supporting jurisdiction. The court held that he had not made such a claim because his reply brief expressly asked the court to review “how the Veterans Court applied the rule of law in Mr. Eriksmoen’s appeal.”
The court also rejected his oral-argument characterization that the Veterans Court, by ignoring the procedural effect of the error, had essentially applied the wrong legal rule. It reasoned that his logic would treat any incorrect application of a legal rule—including disregard of the effects of its correct operation—as application of the wrong rule. In substance, the court held, his argument was that the Veterans Court incorrectly applied the harmless-error rule, which it lacked jurisdiction to consider. The appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the Secretary.
Key Takeaways
- The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal; it did not review or reverse the underlying denial of service connection for Eriksmoen’s lower spine disability.
- A request to review the Veterans Court’s application of harmless-error law to a particular case did not establish jurisdiction under § 7292(d)(2).
- Characterizing an allegedly incorrect application of a legal rule as “essentially” applying the wrong rule did not transform the argument into a prima facie legal claim under Willsey.
- The court awarded costs to the Secretary and designated its disposition as nonprecedential.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the jurisdictional distinction between identifying the legal rule the Veterans Court should have applied and challenging how that court applied the rule in an individual case. For veterans’ appeals, describing an asserted harmless-error mistake as use of the “wrong rule” is not enough where the substance remains disagreement with the rule’s application.
The holding is tied to the arguments Eriksmoen actually presented: he sought review of the harmless-error application and disclaimed a constitutional issue. The court did not announce a universal rule concerning every possible harmless-error or case-jurisdiction argument.