U.S. Code » Title 38 » Part PART V— BOARDS, ADMINISTRATIONS, AND SERVICES › Chapter CHAPTER 72— UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— DECISIONS AND REVIEW

38 U.S.C. § 7292

Review by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) After a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is entered in a case, any party to the case may obtain a review of the decision with respect to the validity of a decision of the Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation (other than a refusal to review the schedule of ratings for disabilities adopted under section 1155 of this title) or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the Court in making the decision. Such a review shall be obtained by filing a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims within the time and in the manner prescribed for appeal to United States courts of appeals from United States district courts.(b)(1) When a judge or panel of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, in making an order not otherwise appealable under this section, determines that a controlling question of law is involved with respect to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that there is in fact a disagreement between the appellant and the Secretary with respect to that question of law and that the ultimate termination of the case may be materially advanced by the immediate consideration of that question, the judge or panel shall notify the chief judge of that determination. Upon receiving such a notification, the chief judge shall certify that such a question is presented, and any party to the case may then petition the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to decide the question. That court may permit an interlocutory appeal to be taken on that question if such a petition is filed with it within 10 days after the certification by the chief judge of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Neither the application for, nor the granting of, an appeal under this paragraph shall stay proceedings in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, unless a stay is ordered by a judge of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims or by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.(2) For purposes of subsections (d) and (e) of this section, an order described in this paragraph shall be treated as a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.(c) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof brought under this section, and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision. The judgment of such court shall be final subject to review by the Supreme Court upon certiorari, in the manner provided in section 1254 of title 28.(d)(1) The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall decide all relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions. The court shall hold unlawful and set aside any regulation or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied upon in the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit finds to be—(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or in violation of a statutory right; or(D) without observance of procedure required by law.(2) Except to the extent that an appeal under this chapter presents a constitutional issue, the Court of Appeals 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.(e)(1) Upon such review, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have power to affirm or, if the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is not in accordance with law, to modify or reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims or to remand the matter, as appropriate.(2) Rules for review of decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims shall be those prescribed by the Supreme Court under section 2072 of title 28.(Added Pub. L. 100–687, div. A, title III, § 301(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4120, § 4092; amended Pub. L. 101–94, title III, § 302(b), Aug. 16, 1989, 103 Stat. 628; renumbered § 7292, Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, § 402(b)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238; Pub. L. 102–54, § 14(e)(5), June 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 287; Pub. L. 102–83, §§ 4(b)(1), (2)(E), 5(c)(1), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 404–406; Pub. L. 105–368, title V, § 512(a)(1), Nov. 11, 1998, 112 Stat. 3341; Pub. L. 107–330, title IV, § 402(a), Dec. 6, 2002, 116 Stat. 2832.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–330 inserted “a decision of the Court on a rule of law or of” after “the validity of” in first sentence.

1998—Subsecs. (a), (b), (d)(1), (e). Pub. L. 105–368 substituted “Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims” for “Court of Veterans Appeals” wherever appearing.

1991—Pub. L. 102–40 renumbered section 4092 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–83, § 5(c)(1), substituted “1155” for “355”.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(b)(1), (2)(E), substituted “Secretary” for “Administrator”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 102–54 amended subsec. (c) as in effect immediately before the enactment of Pub. L. 102–40 by substituting “United States Court” for “United States Courts”.

1989—Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 101–94 struck out “statute or” before “regulation”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2002 Amendment

Pub. L. 107–330, title IV, § 402(b), Dec. 6, 2002, 116 Stat. 2832, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply with respect to any appeal—“(1) filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 6, 2002]; or“(2) pending with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as of the date of the enactment of this Act in which a decision has not been rendered as of that date.”

Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–368 effective on first day of first month beginning more than 90 days after Nov. 11, 1998, see section 513 of Pub. L. 105–368, set out as a note under section 7251 of this title.

Effective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–94 effective as if included in Pub. L. 100–687, div. A, see section 302(c) of Pub. L. 101–94, set out as a note under section 5701 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,186 cases (524 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Rezi P. Forshey, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 284 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rezi P. Forshey, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 284 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 11× “On February 5, 2001, we granted rehearing en banc to consider the scope of our jurisdiction in cases coming to this court from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims under 38 U.S.C. § 7292 , and the prudential rules that should govern the exercise of that jurisdiction where it…”
Donald Buchanan, Claimant-Appellant v. R. James Nicholson, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 8× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292 . II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review Pursuant to 38 U.”
Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “Jurisdiction Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (a), this court has jurisdiction to review a Veterans Court's decision with respect to the validity of a decision on a rule of law, or to the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation relied on by the Veterans Court in making…”
James E. Szemraj, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 357 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004). · cites it 6× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292 . DISCUSSION The appellant argues that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims misconstrued our decision in Roberson , and that Roberson applies to CUE claims.”
Vets. for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 6× “§§ 7251 , 7266(a), and the Federal Circuit, 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (a), is plagued by unreasonable delays that result in a functional denial of benefits.”
Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “The Veterans Court affirmed, holding that Scott “did not raise this [hearing] issue in either proceeding,” referring to Scott’s pri- or appeal to the Veterans Court and his current appeal before the Board.”
Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “Sullivan appeals, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (c). Discussion Our jurisdiction to review Veterans Court decisions is limited by statute.”
Willsey v. Peake, 535 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 10× “Jurisdiction It is our view that the Court has “rule of law” jurisdiction, as provided by 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (a), 2 over Willsey’s claim that the Veterans Court failed, in its review of Willsey’s case, to apply the test for establishing a CUE.”
Sneed v. Shinseki, 737 F.3d 719 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 8× “Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (a), this court has jurisdiction to review “the validi- ty of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation .”
Az v. Shinseki, 731 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 8× “We have jurisdic- tion pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292 . 8 AZ v. SHINSEKI II. AY Appellant AY served honorably on active duty from July 1980 to July 1983.”
Johnson v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “MCDONALD Judge Davis agreed with Chief Judge Kasold’s dissent and emphasized that his dissent was “grounded in the conviction that the language of § 3.”
Flores v. Nicholson, 476 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 7× “Flores had forfeited her rights to VA benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 6103 (a).”
Show all 2,186 citing cases →
— 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) — 7 cases
Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “The Veterans Court affirmed, holding that Scott “did not raise this [hearing] issue in either proceeding,” referring to Scott’s pri- or appeal to the Veterans Court and his current appeal before the Board.”
Clemment B. Epps, Claimant-Appellant v. Hershel W. Gober, Acting Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 126 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Martinez-Bodon v. McDonough, 28 F.4th 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
Crediford v. Shulkin, 877 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Martinez-Bodon v. McDonough (Fed. Cir. 2022).
— 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c) — 2 cases
Tommie P. Butler, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 244 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Wilson v. Dept. Of Vets. Affairs (Fed. Cir. 2012).
— 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d) — 2 cases
Barela v. Shinseki, 584 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Jackson v. Mansfield, 253 F. App'x 957 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
— 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) — 13 cases
Burris v. Wilkie, 888 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Robinson v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 976 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Gurley v. Peake, 528 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Martinez-Bodon v. McDonough, 28 F.4th 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
Leonhardt v. Dept. Of Vets. Affairs, 463 Fed. Appx. 942 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
— 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)(A) — 3 cases
Roane v. McDonough, 64 F.4th 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Donaghue v. McDonough (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Lanzo v. Peake, 287 F. App'x 867 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
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.