Rickel v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 23-2432
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-2432 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 02/18/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

QUIN ADAM RICKEL, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2023-2432 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:22-cv-00341-RAH, Judge Richard A. Hertling. ______________________

Decided: February 18, 2025 ______________________

QUIN ADAM RICKEL, Rock Hill, SC, pro se.

RETA EMMA BEZAK, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. ______________________

Before DYK, CLEVENGER, and PROST, Circuit Judges. Case: 23-2432 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 02/18/2025

PER CURIAM. Quin A. Rickel appeals from the final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing the first of his claims as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2501, which limits the Claims Court’s jurisdiction to claims filed within six years after the claim accrues, and granting the government’s motion for judgment on the administra- tive record on his second claim. See Transcript of Oral Ar- gument at 74, Rickel v. United States, No. 22-341C (Fed. Cl. Aug. 8, 2023) (“Transcript”). Mr. Rickel timely appeals the final judgment of the Claims Court, and we have juris- diction over his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the final deci- sion. I Mr. Rickel served honorably and with distinction in the United States Air Force for 13 years, 2 months and 14 days of active service. On February 17, 2005, his health was evaluated at a Medical Treatment Facility at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. He was then diagnosed with bipolar disorder and a second condition. As a result of the diagnoses, Mr. Rickel was referred to an Air Force Physical Evaluation Board (“PEB”) for determination of whether his condition rendered him unfit for further service, and if so, the percent to which the service member is medically disa- bled. A disability rating of 30% or more qualifies a service member for disability retirement with its associated bene- fits, but a lesser disability rating requires the service mem- ber to be discharged with severance pay only. 10 U.S.C. §§ 1201—1203. In Mr. Rickel’s case, the PEB credited him with 30% disability due to his bipolar disorder, but then reduced his rating to 10% due to the diagnosis of his second condition. The PEB accordingly recommended on April 15, 2005, that Mr. Rickel be discharged with severance pay. On June 7, 2005, the Air Force separated Mr. Rickel Case: 23-2432 Document: 55 Page: 3 Filed: 02/18/2025

RICKEL v. US 3

honorably with severance pay and a 10% disability rating pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §§ 1203 and 1212. Shortly after his separation, Mr. Rickel applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) for veteran’s bene- fits. The VA initially awarded him a 50% rating for bipolar disorder, effective June 8, 2005. Later, the VA increased the rating first to 70%, then to 100%, effective June 8, 2005. While Mr. Rickel was in the process of seeking higher disability ratings at the VA, he filed a claim with the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (“AFBCMR”) on July 27, 2011. Mr. Rickel contended that he should have been rated 50% disabled for bipolar disor- der, citing the disability rating given by the VA for bipolar disorder, and alternatively that the diagnosis of his second condition was incorrect and thus should not have been used to reduce the otherwise applicable 30% disability rating for bipolar disorder. On December 2, 2013, the AFBCMR de- nied his claim, finding that the diagnosis of the second con- dition was not erroneous and noting that VA ratings do not compel equivalent Air Force disability ratings because each are separate federal agencies that operate under different laws and policies. On June 29, 2017, Mr. Rickel made another attempt to review the initial 10% disability rating in 2005. Instead of returning to the AFBCMR, he sought review by the Physi- cal Disability Board of Review (“PDBR”), an agency of the Department of Defense that reviews disability ratings made by each of the military services. He again argued that he was incorrectly diagnosed with his second condition in 2005, and thus he was entitled to military disability re- tirement based on the 30% disability rating for bipolar dis- order. The PDBR agreed with Mr. Rickel regarding the diag- nosis of his second condition. Because that condition was not ratable or compensable under the applicable guide- lines, the PDRB determined that the 30% disability rating Case: 23-2432 Document: 55 Page: 4 Filed: 02/18/2025

should not have been reduced on account of the second con- dition. The PDRB recommended that the discharge with severance pay determination be modified to reflect perma- nent disability retirement, effective the date of medical separation. The PDBR also considered whether the 30% disability rating for bipolar disorder in 2005 was correct. The PDBR agreed in part with Mr. Rickel regarding his re- quest for increase in his disability rating for bipolar disor- der. Because the law specifies in 10 U.S.C. § 1216(a) that the military utilize, to the extent feasible, the VA schedule for rating disabilities in determinations of military disabil- ity, the PDRB did so, and concluded that the extent of Mr. Rickel’s disability as of his separation was 50% and recom- mended that Mr. Rickel’s military records reflect disability at 50%. On October 11, 2019, the Air Force Review Boards Agency accepted the PDBR’s recommendation and ordered that Mr. Rickel’s records be corrected accordingly. Mr. Rickel’s military records were corrected to show the unfit- ness for duty determination rating at 50% for bipolar dis- order, and to show that he “was not discharged on 7 June 2005, with entitlement to disability severance pay; rather on that date, he was released from active duty and on 8 June 2005, his name was placed on the permanent Disabil- ity Retired List.” II On March 25, 2022, Mr. Rickel, acting pro se, filed a complaint in the Claims Court, which he amended on May 5, 2023, stating eight separate claims. During a hearing before the Claims Court, Mr. Rickel reduced his claims to two: first, that the diagnosis of his second condition in 2005, which disqualified him for disability retirement, was incorrect, and second, that the PDBR incorrectly denied his request for a 100% military disability rating by failing to match his military disability rating with his 100% VA dis- ability rating. See Transcript at 45-48, 62. Case: 23-2432 Document: 55 Page: 5 Filed: 02/18/2025

RICKEL v. US 5

During the hearing, the Claims Court focused first on Mr. Rickel’s claim that his second condition was misdiag- nosed at the time of his discharge in 2005. Referring to 28 U.S.C. § 2501, the Claims Court noted that it lacks juris- diction over claims filed more than six years after the claim accrues, and that under Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2005), a claim for military disa- bility retirement accrues when a board authorized to hear a claim issues a decision. Transcript at 63. In addition, the Claims Court, citing Real v. United States, 906 F.2d 1557, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1990), noted that the statute of limi- tations is not tolled if a service member, after receiving a decision on his claim, later seeks relief from an Armed Ser- vices Correction Board. Transcript at 62-64. The Claims Court noted that the statute of limitations can be sus- pended on a showing that the government fraudulently concealed from the plaintiff facts relevant to the plaintiff knowing he has a claim, and noted further that there is no evidence in this case of such fraudulent concealment and that under Joppy v. United States, 646 Fed. App’x 998, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016), a misdiagnosis of a medical condition does not constitute fraudulent concealment. Transcript at 64-66. Because the PEB decision in 2005 gave rise to Mr. Rickel’s claim of an incorrect diagnosis of his second condi- tion, the Claims Court held that his claim accrued more than six years before the complaint was filed in 2022. Ac- cordingly, the Claims Court dismissed Mr. Rickel’s first claim. Transcript at 66-67. Mr. Rickel’s second claim alleged error by the PDBR in failing to give him the same 100% disability rating that he had been given by the VA. The Claims Court, citing 5 U.S.C. § 706, noted that as a challenge to an action by an administrative agency, Mr. Rickel’s claim fails absent a showing that the PDRB 2019 determination was arbitrary, capricious or a violation of law. Transcript at 68. Mr. Rickel based his claim on 10 U.S.C. § 1216(a), which re- quires the Air Force to evaluate his disability using the Case: 23-2432 Document: 55 Page: 6 Filed: 02/18/2025

same table and same regulations used by the VA to evalu- ate the same disability. The Claims Court held that even though the military must use the VA’s standards for eval- uating medical conditions and degrees of disability, the military is not required to agree with a particular disability assessment made by the VA. Transcript at 69. The mili- tary assesses a service member’s condition for fitness for duty and for appropriate compensation upon separation based on unfitness for duty, and the VA rates a veteran’s ability to function in the civilian world. For this reason, VA ratings are not binding on the military. See Sabree v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 683, 695-96 (Cl. Ct. 2009) (citing Chambers, 417 F.3d at 1225). The Claims Court, upon re- view of the PDBR decision, found that the PDBR in fact had used the appropriate VA table and regulations in its analysis of the facts of Mr. Rickel’s condition. The Claims Court determined that the 50% disability rating found on the facts by the PDRB was reasonable, and therefore not arbitrary, capricious or in violation of law. Transcript at 73. Accordingly, the Claims Court held that the govern- ment was entitled to judgment in its favor on Mr. Rickel’s second claim. III After careful review of the final decision by the Claims Court and the briefs filed by the parties, we discern no er- ror by the Claims Court in its dismissal of the two claims Mr. Rickel chose to present to the Claims Court. Although Mr. Rickel’s briefs make reference to the issues involved in the claims that he chose not to pursue before the Claims Court, we do not understand Mr. Rickel to contest that he withdrew many of his initial claims. Mr. Rickel does not otherwise present arguments that would undermine the application of the statute of limitations to his first claim, and he has not offered any basis to disturb the rationale of the Claims Court that defeated his second claim. The gov- ernment’s arguments in support of the final decision are compelling, and Mr. Rickel’s attempt to overcome those Case: 23-2432 Document: 55 Page: 7 Filed: 02/18/2025

RICKEL v. US 7

arguments is unavailing. We therefore affirm the final judgment of the Claims Court in this case. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.