38 U.S.C. § 7252
Jurisdiction; finality of decisions
1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–368 substituted “Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims” for “Court of Veterans Appeals”.
1991—Pub. L. 102–40, § 402(b)(1), renumbered section 4052 of this title as this section.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(b)(1), (2)(E), substituted “Secretary” for “Administrator”.
Pub. L. 102–54 amended subsec. (a) as in effect immediately before the enactment of Pub. L. 102–40 by substituting “Court” for “court” in last sentence.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–83, § 5(c)(1), substituted “1155” for “355”.
Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(b)(1), (2)(E), substituted “Secretary” for “Administrator” in two places.
Pub. L. 102–40, § 402(d)(1), substituted “7261” for “4061”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 102–40, § 402(d)(1), substituted “7292” for “4092”.
Amendment by Pub. L. 105–368 effective on first day of first month beginning more than 90 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,587
cases (184 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Larry G. Tyrues v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166 (Vet. App. 2009).
Larry G. Tyrues v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166 (Vet. App. 2009). “For the reasons set forth below, the Court holds that the Secretary permissibly processed and issued a final decision denying benefits based on direct service connection, and remanded for the consideration of benefits based upon presumptive service connection, in separate…”
Ellis C. Smith v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 63 (Vet. App. 2005). “§ 1110 and that such an inquiry did not constitute a review of the rating schedule (which is prohibited by 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (b)). After reaching that conclusion, this Court had then invalidated the trauma requirement contained in pre-1999 DC 6260 because it was "in violation of…”
Randy L. Pederson v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 276 (Vet. App. 2015). “This appeal is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction to review the Board's decision pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (a). On August 22, 2014, this case was submitted for en banc review, and the Court directed the parties to file supplemental memoranda of law.”
Vets. for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2012). “To that end, Congress conferred on the Veterans Court " exclusive jurisdiction" to review decisions of the Board of Veterans' *1022 Appeals, 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (a) (emphasis added), and its powers include the authority to decide any question of law relevant to benefits…”
Phillip Andre, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 301 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “In a July 20, 2000 order, the Veterans Court held that it lacked jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (a) to consider the newly-raised CUE claims.”
Carpenter v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 64 (Vet. App. 2001). “The Jurisdiction of the Court The jurisdiction of the Court of [Appeals for Veterans Claims] is specifically defined by statute at 38 U.S.C. § 7252 , in a provision entitled "Jurisdiction; finality of decisions.”
David J. Harms v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 238 (Vet. App. 2006). “He contends that because that denial was a final decision of the Board, he is entitled to review by this Court pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252 and 7266. Id. at 4-5 . The Secretary filed a reply in which he argues that a motion to vacate, like a motion for reconsideration, is a…”
Mark W. Breeden v. Anthony J. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 475 (Vet. App. 2004). “" On January 17, 2002, the Secretary filed a motion to dismiss and to stay proceedings arguing that under 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252 (a) and 7266(a) this Court's jurisdiction is limited to review of final decisions of the Board and that Board remands in general, and this remand in…”
Arnold Kyhn v. Shinseki, 716 F.3d 572 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “” 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (a), (b); see also Henderson v.”
Euzebio v. McDonough, 989 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “; see 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (b) (“Review in the Court shall be on the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board.”
Holliday v. Principi, 14 Vet. App. 280 (Vet. App. 2001). “This appeal is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252 (a) and 7266(a). For the reasons that follow, the Court will vacate the decision of the Board and remand the matter.”
Jacob Wanner & King L. Wright, Claimants-Appellees v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 370 F.3d 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “The Secretary challenged Wanner’s statutory argument by asserting that the Veterans Court lacked jurisdiction over the argument under 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (b). Section 7252(b), which is the jurisdictional statute for the Veterans Court, explains: Review in the Court shall be on the…”
— 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a) — 7 cases
Mark W. Breeden v. Anthony J. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 475 (Vet. App. 2004). “" On January 17, 2002, the Secretary filed a motion to dismiss and to stay proceedings arguing that under 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252 (a) and 7266(a) this Court's jurisdiction is limited to review of final decisions of the Board and that Board remands in general, and this remand in…”
Stinson v. McDonough, 92 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
Van Allen v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 294 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
Disabled Am. Vets. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Sanders v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 17 (Vet. App. 1993).
— 38 U.S.C. § 7252(b) — 1 case
Hayes-Libby v. Collins (Fed. Cir. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.