Case: 20-1969 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PAUL E. ROBINSON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2020-1969
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 18-4296, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: January 8, 2021
______________________
PAUL E. ROBINSON, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
SONIA W. MURPHY, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by JEFFREY B. CLARK, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, ROBERT
EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.; MEGHAN ALPHONSO, Y. KEN LEE,
Office of General Counsel, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 20-1969 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2021
2 ROBINSON v. WILKIE
______________________
Before MOORE, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Paul E. Robinson appeals a United States Court of Ap-
peals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) judgment va-
cating the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denial of an
earlier effective date for his total disability rating based on
individual unemployability (TDIU) and remanding for fur-
ther adjudication. For the reasons discussed below, we dis-
miss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Robinson served in the United States Army Na-
tional Guard from October 1976 to January 1982. In Au-
gust 2009, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
granted Mr. Robinson a TDIU effective July 1, 2008. The
Board denied his appeal seeking an earlier effective date.
On appeal to the Veterans Court, the government conceded
that vacatur and remand were warranted because the
Board’s decision relied on evidence of “sedentary work”
prior to July 1, 2008, but the Board failed to explain the
meaning of “sedentary work” or how it factored into Mr.
Robinson’s ability to secure “a substantially gainful occu-
pation.” Robinson v. Wilkie, No. 18-4296, 2019 WL
5607902, at *1 (Vet. App. Oct. 31, 2019). In a single-judge
decision, the Veterans Court remanded “because the neces-
sary discussion of sedentary work constitutes a factual de-
termination that the Board must make in the first
instance.” Id. at *2. A panel of the Veterans Court adopted
the single-judge decision. Mr. Robinson appeals.
DISCUSSION
We do not typically review remand orders by the Vet-
erans Court “because they are not final judgments.”
Case: 20-1969 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2021
ROBINSON v. WILKIE 3
Williams v. Principi, 275 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We depart from this rule only if:
(1) there [has] been a clear and final decision of a
legal issue that (a) is separate from the remand
proceedings, (b) will directly govern the remand
proceedings or, (c) if reversed by this court, would
render the remand proceedings unnecessary;
(2) the resolution of the legal issues [] adversely af-
fect[s] the party seeking review; and,
(3) there [is] a substantial risk that the decision
would not survive a remand, i.e., that the remand
proceeding may moot the issue.
Id.
Mr. Robinson’s appeal does not satisfy this standard.
There is no clear and final decision of a legal issue, only a
remand for expedited readjudication of Mr. Robinson’s ef-
fective-date arguments. Moreover, the Veterans Court’s
remand is not adverse to Mr. Robinson because it vacated
the Board’s denial of Mr. Robinson’s desired effective date.
Accordingly, we hold we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
See Jones v. Nicholson, 431 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir.
2005).
CONCLUSION
Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.