¹ The provision was originally enacted as 38 U.S.C. § 3404(c)(1) but was renumbered in 1991 as 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1). See Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, 102 Stat. 4105, 4108 (1988); Department of Vet- erans Affairs Health-Care Personnel Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-40, 105 Stat. 187, 238–39. Case: 23-1117 Document: 50 Page: 4 Filed: 05/09/2024 4 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH administrative process, no longer prohibiting such charg- ing for work before a final Board decision. Veterans Bene- fits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, § 101(c)–(d), 120 Stat. at 3407–08; see Military-Veterans Advocacy v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 7 F.4th 1110, 1135–36 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (reviewing the statutory history of limitations on attorney’s fees for VA benefits claims). As amended, the statutory prohibition applies only “with re- spect to services provided before the date on which a notice of disagreement is filed with respect to the case.” 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1) (2006). 2 Under the post-Act statute, charging is thus permitted for services from when an appeal to the Board is initiated, because a “notice of disagreement” is a filing that initiates a veteran’s effort to seek Board review of a decision by an agency of original jurisdiction (regional office). 38 U.S.C. § 7105(a) (“Appellate review shall be ini- tiated by the filing of a notice of disagreement in the form prescribed by the Secretary” of Veterans Affairs.). It is undisputed that there was no final Board decision in Mr. Fleming’s case. See Perciavalle’s Opening Br. at 8; Secretary’s Response Br. at 7 n.2; J.A. 74. It is therefore also undisputed that, if the pre-Act version of the statute applies, Mr. Perciavalle is not entitled to the fees in dis- pute. In contrast, if the post-Act version applies, the tim- ing rule of § 5904(c)(1) does not bar fees. Other possible constraints on fees (e.g., that the fees awarded reflect the contribution to and responsibility for benefits awarded), which are not before us, are immaterial if the pre-Act ver- sion’s time bar applies.

² This subsection was amended again in 2017. See Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-55, 131 Stat. 1105, 1110; 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1) (2018). Neither party argues that the 2017 amendments apply to this case. Case: 23-1117 Document: 50 Page: 5 Filed: 05/09/2024 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH 5 B 6 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH VA addressed many other conditions, including the shrap- nel fragment in his left wrist and injury to muscle group XVII. J.A. 23–25. In May 2009, Mr. Fleming filed a notice of disagree- ment with the March 2009 decision. J.A. 37. In that notice of disagreement, Mr. Fleming argued, among other things, that he was entitled to a TDIU because his “evaluation per- centage for PTSD should be at 70% minimum” and that “in- dividual unemployability clearly is met.” J.A. 37. The Board, when it addressed the appeal, recognized that the May 2009 notice of disagreement sought to place before it the TDIU issue as well as numerous other matters, includ- ing the left-wrist shrapnel fragment and muscle group XVII matters. See J.A. 40–41. All claims raised by Mr. Fleming remained on appeal before the Board for several years, until in January 2013 the Board remanded all of Mr. Fleming’s claims to VA. See J.A. 40–47. On May 9, 2016, while these claims remained pending, Mr. Perciavalle entered into a contingent fee agreement with Mr. Fleming. J.A. 50. As permitted by 38 U.S.C. § 5904(d), the fee agreement set Mr. Perciavalle’s rate at “20% (twenty percent) of any arrearages awarded . . . as a result of [his] representation before the Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs for [Mr. Fleming’s] service[-]con- nected conditions.” J.A. 50. On March 2, 2017, VA increased its evaluation of Mr. Fleming’s PTSD to 100% disabling, effective April 11, 2008. J.A. 56–61. VA also granted Mr. Fleming entitlement to special monthly compensation, under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s), based on his being housebound. J.A. 61–62; see also id. at 62 (also recognizing eligibility for Dependents’ Educational Assistance under 38 U.S.C. ch. 35). Given the 100% PTSD rating assignment, Mr. Perciavalle withdrew Mr. Flem- ing’s TDIU appeal the same day. J.A. 225. Case: 23-1117 Document: 50 Page: 7 Filed: 05/09/2024 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH 7 8 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH was not entitled to charge fees because there had been no final Board decision. J.A. 74. On March 14, 2017, the day after VA’s fee ruling, Mr. Perciavalle filed a notice of disagreement with the decision denying fees based on the non-SMC part of the compensa- tion award. J.A. 77–79. In April 2020, the Board issued a decision agreeing with VA’s fees denial. J.A. 108–17. The Board determined that the May 2009 notice of disagree- ment—after June 20, 2007—did not support the disputed fee request because “the submission of the May 2009 notice of disagreement did not trigger [Mr. Perciavalle’s] eligibil- ity to receive attorney fees based on [Mr. Fleming’s] TDIU claim.” J.A. 115; see also J.A. 114–17. The Board explained that it “must find that the TDIU claim [which was part of what was covered by the May 2009 notice of disagreement] only arose from the initial January 2006 rating decision and the October 2006 notice of disagreement that initiated an appeal of the rating.” J.A. 115. The Board stated that the May 2009 notice of disagreement “did not have the le- gal effect of a notice of disagreement for purposes of per- fecting an appeal” because the issue of entitlement to a TDIU was already “before the Board for consideration pur- suant to Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 454–55 (2009).” J.A. 114–15. Mr. Perciavalle appealed to the Veterans Court, which issued a decision in July 2022. Citing its decision in Cam- eron v. Shinseki, the Veterans Court stated that the amendment made to § 5904(c)(1) “‘only applies to cases where the NOD was filed after June 19, 2007.’” Decision, 2022 WL 3016250, at *2 (quoting 26 Vet. App. 109, 113 (2012), aff’d, 561 F. App’x 922 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The court then determined that it found no “clear error in the Board’s determination that the October 2006 NOD initiated the claim stream that led to grant of benefits in March 2017.” Id. Finally, the court noted that “the record does not show any [evidence], outside of the October 2006 letter, that Case: 23-1117 Document: 50 Page: 9 Filed: 05/09/2024 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH 9 could be construed as an NOD challenging the PTSD rat- ing.” Id. at *3. The Veterans Court entered its final judgment on Au- gust 22, 2022, and Mr. Perciavalle timely filed his appeal on October 20, 2022. We have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (c). II Our authority to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited by statute. We have the authority to review “the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the Court in making the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); Flores-Vazquez v. McDonough, 996 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We may decide “all relevant questions of law” and will “set aside any regulation or any interpretation thereof,” if relied upon in the decision of the Veterans Court, that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1)(A). But where (as here) no constitu- tional question is presented, we “may not review (A) a chal- lenge 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). We decide legal issues, including statutory interpretations, de novo. Stanley v. Principi, 283 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Blubaugh v. McDonald, 773 F.3d 1310, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A The Veterans Court erred as a matter of law in its un- derstanding of the legal standard that governs the deter- mination of whether the post-Act or pre-Act version of 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1) applies in a case. Where Congress has provided clear instructions as to the effective date of a statutory amendment and has speci- fied the cases to which the amendment applies, those Case: 23-1117 Document: 50 Page: 10 Filed: 05/09/2024 10 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH instructions govern. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994); Schaeffler Group USA, Inc. v. United States, 786 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Con- gress gave such an instruction in enacting the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006. Congress explicitly prescribed the effective date of the statutory amendments, explaining that they “shall take effect on [June 20, 2007,] and shall apply with respect to services of agents and attorneys that are provided with respect to cases in which notices of disagreement are filed on or after that date.” § 101(h), 120 Stat. at 3408. That language has a clear “ordinary meaning” on its face. See Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, 4 F.4th 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (starting analysis with ordinary meaning). The language makes it a sufficient condition to trigger application of the post-Act fee provision that a no- tice of disagreement was filed in a veteran’s case on or after June 20, 2007. That condition is not qualified according to whether another notice of disagreement also was filed in the same case before June 20, 2007. We have been shown, and have uncovered, no legislative history that contradicts that meaning, much less in a way that would control over what the words mean. We have previously addressed the meaning of the term “case” as used in the post-Act version of § 5904(c)(1). We have taken a broad view of the term, stating that “a ‘case’ within the meaning of Section 5904(c) encompasses ‘all po- tential claims raised by the evidence, applying all relevant laws and regulations, regardless of whether the claim is specifically labeled . . . .’” Jackson v. Shinseki, 587 F.3d 1106, 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis and alteration in original) (quoting Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Given the similarities between the text of the effective-date provision and § 5904(c)(1), we see no basis for departing from that definition of the term in in- terpreting § 101(h). See § 101(h), 120 Stat. at 3408 (stating the 2006 amendments shall apply “with respect to cases in Case: 23-1117 Document: 50 Page: 11 Filed: 05/09/2024 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH 11 which notices of disagreement are filed” after June 20, 2007); 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1) (2006) (allowing agents and attorneys to charge fees after “a notice of disagreement is filed with respect to the case”). Therefore, as long as a no- tice of disagreement was filed on or after June 20, 2007, in the same “case” in which counsel is seeking fees as the term is defined in Jackson, the post-Act version of 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1) applies. Significantly, this understanding does not foreclose ap- plication of a limitation, consistent with the text and com- pelled by purpose and context, on what constitutes a filing of a notice of disagreement in a case (on or after June 20, 2007). See Transpacific Steel, 4 F.4th at 1323 (discussing context and purpose within textual limits); Utility Air Reg- ulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U.S. 302, 320 (2014) (reiterating the “fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, a frivolous or “sham” notice of disagree- ment, for instance, or one that serves no function in ad- vancing the adjudication of entitlement to benefits and is filed solely for the purpose of permitting recovery of fees, may not trigger eligibility for fees. This limitation reflects a background legal principle, familiar from many areas of law, that filings are properly denied legal recognition or protection (i.e., are not cognizable) for various purposes if they are sufficiently devoid of substance. See, e.g., Ex parte Davenport, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 661, 664 (1832) (per Story, J.) (interpreting statute to prevent giving effect to a party’s “contrivances”: “He should not by sham pleadings, or by other pretended defences, be allowed to avail himself of a postponement of judgment . . . .”); Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) (sham filings denied antitrust immunity); BE & K Construction Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 536 U.S. 516 (2002) (sham litigation subject to Case: 23-1117 Document: 50 Page: 12 Filed: 05/09/2024 12 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH NLRB injunctions). Application of that principle here is required by the plain purpose of § 101(h). Allowing any fil- ing of a notice of disagreement on or after June 20, 2007, even one having no legitimate purpose in the VA benefit system, to change which version of the fee provision ap- plies—that is, allowing naked manipulation of the effective date—would defeat the self-evident function of temporally limiting availability of the new version of the fee provision. The Veterans Court in this case did not cite or quote the § 101(h) effective-date provision, and its reasoning de- parts from the clear meaning of the provision. The Veter- ans Court quoted its earlier decision’s statement that “the December 2006 amendment to 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1) pro- vided that the ‘change only applies to cases where the NOD was filed after June 19, 2007.’” Decision, 2022 WL 3016250, at *2 (emphasis added) (quoting Cameron, 26 Vet. App. at 113). But the Veterans Court cannot be understood to have meant that there is only one notice of disagreement per “case,” which is the word used in § 101(h). The Secre- tary recognizes that there can be more than one. Secre- tary’s Response Br. at 14 (stating that “there can be multiple NODs as VA successively addresses the five dif- ferent elements of a case, Collaro v. West, 136 F.3d 1304, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (veteran status, disability, nexus to service, compensation level, and effective date)”). The Sec- retary cites decisions of ours also so recognizing. 3

³ In arguing that there can be only one notice of dis- agreement for each “element” of a case, the Secretary cites Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158–59 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and Barrera v. Gober, 122 F.3d 1030, 1031–32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See Secretary’s Response Br. at 14. In both de- cisions, Grantham, 114 F.3d at 1158–59; Barrera, 122 F.3d at 1032, we recognized that there could be multiple notices of disagreement in a case and held that the new chapter 72 Case: 23-1117 Document: 50 Page: 13 Filed: 05/09/2024 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH 13 Rather, the Veterans Court took an approach that re- flects a search for what the Secretary labels the single “op- erative NOD” for fee purposes. Secretary’s Response Br. at 10–16. Specifically, it approved the Board’s focus on iden- tifying “which NOD precipitated the claim stream” that “led to grant of benefits.” Decision, 2022 WL 3016250, at *2; see also id. at *1 (explaining that “the Board refused to pay [Mr. Perciavalle] any fees from Mr. Fleming’s past-due PTSD benefits because the award arose from an NOD filed in October 2006” and that “VA informed Mr. Perciavalle that he was not entitled to any fees related to the PTSD grant because that appeal stemmed from an NOD that was submitted prior to June 2007”). But that approach departs from the statute. The language of § 101(h) states that the amended ver- sion of the statute shall apply “with respect to cases in which notices of disagreement are filed on or after” June 20, 2007. § 101(h), 120 Stat. at 3408. It does not presup- pose that there is only one notice of disagreement in a case. It does not call for identifying a notice of disagreement for a particular “element” in a case. It does not call for disre- garding all notices of disagreement except one (or perhaps more than one) that can be identified as initiating an ap- peal that led to the grant of benefits. It simply asks if there was any (cognizable) notice of disagreement filed on or af- ter June 20, 2007, in the case for which the veteran’s agent or attorney seeks fees. If so, the amended statute applies. of Title 38, creating the Veterans Court and its jurisdiction, applied to cases in which, where there were two notices of disagreement, one was filed on or after the enactment of the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, 102 Stat. 4105 (enacted Nov. 18, 1988). See § 402, 102 Stat. at 4122 (providing that new “Chapter 72 . . . shall apply with respect to any case in which a notice of disagreement is filed . . . on or after the date of the enactment of this Act”). Case: 23-1117 Document: 50 Page: 14 Filed: 05/09/2024 14 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH B The foregoing analysis means that the Veterans Court’s decision must, at a minimum, be set aside because it rests on a legally incorrect understanding of the standard that governs which version of the fee provision (pre-Act or post-Act) applies to this case. But it is permissible, and useful, for us to go further and address this case in partic- ular. This is so whether or not we adopt the Veterans Court’s statement, in an earlier case, that “[w]hether a doc- ument is an NOD is a question of law.” Beyrle v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 24, 28 (1996). “‘[W]here adoption of a particular legal standard dictates the outcome of a case based on un- disputed facts, we may address that issue as a question of law.’” Kelly v. Nicholson, 463 F.3d 1349, 1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Halpern v. Principi, 384 F.3d 1297, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see Sellers v. Wilkie, 965 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Robinson v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 976, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Groves v. Peake, 524 F.3d 1306, 1309–10 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Secretary has not shown that the facts that are material under the correct standard are in dispute, and on those facts, the post-Act version of the fee statute ap- plies. The veteran in this case filed a notice of disagreement on or after June 20, 2007—namely, the May 2009 notice of disagreement challenging VA’s March 2009 decision. Un- der the correct legal standard of § 101(h), that notice of dis- agreement cannot be disregarded, as the Veterans Court and the Board thought, based simply on a determination that it did not lead to the award of past-due benefits for disability based on PTSD or was unnecessary to put issues related to PTSD, including entitlement to TDIU on that ba- sis, before the Board. It is undisputed that the May 2009 notice of disagree- ment, far from being a sham, was a legitimate notice of dis- agreement serving a legitimate function in the VA Case: 23-1117 Document: 50 Page: 15 Filed: 05/09/2024 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH 15 system—at least because it included a variety of issues sep- arate from PTSD issues. The Board did not disagree; in- deed, it recognized that thirteen such issues listed in the March 2009 VA decision, see J.A. 34–36, were before it on appeal as a result of the May 2009 notice of disagreement. J.A. 40–41; see also J.A. 53 (VA acknowledging that the Board interpreted the May 2009 notice of disagreement as “inclusive of all determinations” in VA’s March 2009 deci- sion). The Secretary, in this court, did not disagree on this point either. Oral Arg. at 22:45–23:13. There is also no dispute about the facts determining whether, under the definition set forth in Jackson, the May 2009 notice of disagreement was part of the “case” for which the fees at issue were sought. As to the request for TDIU based on PTSD made in that notice of disagreement, the Board, in its fee-denial decision, disregarded the May 2009 notice on the ground that the October 2006 notice was the operative one for the TDIU issue. J.A. 115–16. At oral argument, government counsel stated that at least Mr. Fleming’s entitlement to a TDIU is properly considered part of the same “case” as the PTSD claim. Oral Arg. at 34:49–35:30. Even setting aside the TDIU-entitlement issue, the Secretary has not disputed that the May 2009 notice of dis- agreement comes within the “case” language of § 101(h) as that language is understood based on Jackson. In particu- lar, the Secretary has not argued that all thirteen addi- tional issues raised in the May 2009 notice of disagreement concern conditions not sufficiently evident in the record be- fore VA at the time of the September 2006 decision to have been part of the “case” that included the PTSD claim. 4

⁴ As we have noted, at least two of the conditions cov- ered by the May 2009 notice of disagreement—the shrapnel fragment in Mr. Fleming’s left wrist and injury to muscle Case: 23-1117 Document: 50 Page: 16 Filed: 05/09/2024 16 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH Rather, the Secretary’s only arguments relating to the scope of the case focus on claim “elements” and single out an “operative” notice of disagreement. Those arguments do not create a disputed issue under the Jackson standard for “case” in § 101(h). For the foregoing reasons, we conclude as a matter of law, based on the material facts that are not disputed, that the May 2009 notice of disagreement is a notice of disagree- ment that, under the § 101(h) effective-date provision, makes applicable to Mr. Perciavalle’s fee request the post- Act version of 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1). We reverse the Vet- erans Court’s ruling to the contrary. C The appeal before us relates solely to Mr. Perciavalle’s ability to charge a fee for his services under 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1). Congress has imposed other constraints on fee awards. See 38 U.S.C. § 5904(a)(5), (c)(3)(A); 38 C.F.R. § 14.636(e)–(f), (h); see also Scates v. Principi, 282 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that “an attorney with a contingent fee contract . . . may receive only a fee that fairly and accurately reflects his contribution to and responsibility for the benefits awarded”). Nothing about those constraints, including whether they have been raised or may yet be raised, is before us in this appeal. III We have considered the government’s additional argu- ments and find them unpersuasive. Because we conclude that the Veterans Court erred in concluding that the 2006 amendment to 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1) does not apply to Mr. group XVII, see J.A. 40–41 (2013 Board listing of issues raised by May 2009 notice of disagreement)—were actually addressed in the September 2006 VA decision that gave rise to the October 2006 notice of disagreement, J.A. 16. Case: 23-1117 Document: 50 Page: 17 Filed: 05/09/2024 PERCIAVALLE v. MCDONOUGH 17 Perciavalle’s fee-entitlement claim, we reverse the Veter- ans Court’s decision and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs awarded to Mr. Perciavalle. REVERSED AND REMANDED