Rorie v. Collins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: June 17, 2026
• Docket: 25-1194
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-1194 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 06/17/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JAMES W. RORIE, Claimant-Appellant

v.

DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2025-1194 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 22-5377, Chief Judge Michael P. Allen, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr, Judge Joseph L. Toth. ______________________

Decided: June 17, 2026 ______________________

TRACY KAY ALSUP, AlsupLaw, LLC, Beaverton, OR, ar- gued for claimant-appellant.

EVAN WISSER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di- vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, Case: 25-1194 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 06/17/2026

BRETT SHUMATE; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, JONATHAN KRISCH, Of- fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet- erans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________

Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges. HUGHES, Circuit Judge. James W. Rorie appeals a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that affirmed a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denying enti- tlement to an effective date before November 18, 1988, for service-connected tinea pedis. See Rorie v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 430, 434 (2024). Because the Veterans Court determined that Mr. Rorie forfeited the arguments he now raises on appeal, we dismiss for lack of subject matter ju- risdiction. On appeal, Mr. Rorie argues that the Veterans Court misinterpreted 38 C.F.R. § 3.157(b) (1985) (repealed 2015) with respect to a 1985 VA examination report that he claims should have been interpreted as an informal claim for an increased disability rating for a previously “allowed” formal claim. See Appellant Br. 5–16. However, the Veter- ans Court found that this argument was forfeited because it was not raised in his opening brief. Rorie, 37 Vet. App. at 439 (citing Andrews v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 151, 159 (2021)). Before us, Mr. Rorie briefly challenges the Vet- erans Court’s finding. See Appellant Br. 13 n.3. But the Veterans Court’s finding is an application of law to fact that we do not have jurisdiction to review. 1 38 U.S.C.

1 To the extent that the Veterans Court’s interpreta- tion of § 3.157(b) could implicate a legal issue within this court’s jurisdiction, Mr. Rorie raised this argument only in the context of a theory he forfeited at the Veterans Court. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction. See Belcher v. West, Case: 25-1194 Document: 51 Page: 3 Filed: 06/17/2026

RORIE v. COLLINS 3

§ 7292(d)(2); see Moody v. Principi, 360 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[W]e are without jurisdiction to review a factual determination or an application of law to the par- ticular facts in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Vet- erans Claims.”). Because Mr. Rorie’s arguments on appeal challenge the Veteran’s Court’s application of law to fact, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.

214 F.3d 1335, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (finding no jurisdic- tion to review an issue not properly raised to the Veterans Court).