Case: 21-2254 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JOHN R. GILLILAN,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2021-2254
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-8325, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
Jr.
______________________
Decided: May 10, 2022
______________________
JOHN R. GILLILAN, Reno, NV, pro se.
VIJAYA SURAMPUDI, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Y. KEN
LEE, Office of General Counsel, United States Department
of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 21-2254 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 05/10/2022
2 GILLILAN v. MCDONOUGH
______________________
Before PROST, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
John R. Gillilan appeals the decision of the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a
decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denying
Mr. Gillilan an effective date before March 20, 2016 for a
total disability rating based on individual unemployability
(TDIU) and denying Mr. Gillilan’s request that recoupment
of a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) settlement under
38 U.S.C. § 1151 not include amounts Mr. Gillilan paid in
attorneys’ fees and be recouped by withholding only a por-
tion of his monthly benefits. On appeal, Mr. Gillilan argues
that the Veterans Court erred in affirming the Board’s de-
cision. For the reasons below, we dismiss the appeal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Gillilan served in the California National Guard
with a period of active-duty training from August to De-
cember 1964. SAppx. 7; see also SAppx. 64. 1 In
March 2010, he underwent a lumbar spine fusion proce-
dure at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medi-
cal facility that resulted in a permanent and debilitating
nerve injury to his left lumbar spine, left leg, and left foot.
SAppx. 81–83. Mr. Gillilan filed a claim under the FTCA
seeking damages for his injuries, id., and in March 2016,
he agreed to settle those claims in the amount of $110,000,
SAppx. 75–80.
After settling his FTCA claim, Mr. Gillilan filed a claim
under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 on March 30, 2016 for multiple
1 All SAppx. citations refer to the supplemental ap-
pendix filed concurrently with Appellee’s brief.
Case: 21-2254 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 05/10/2022
GILLILAN v. MCDONOUGH 3
disabilities caused by the March 2010 surgery.
SAppx. 70–73. In November 2016, the VA awarded him
§ 1151 benefits for his lower extremity injuries and special
monthly compensation for the loss of use of one foot, both
effective March 30, 2016. SAppx. 64. In early 2017, the VA
informed Mr. Gillilan that, in view of the payment he al-
ready received for his now-settled FTCA claim, the VA
would recoup his FTCA settlement payment from his VA
disability compensation pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(1).
SAppx. 59.
Mr. Gillilan responded in November 2017 with a Notice
of Disagreement, arguing that the recoupment should ex-
clude any attorneys’ fees and requesting that the VA only
withhold a portion of his monthly disability benefits.
SAppx. 41. The VA disagreed, finding that it was not au-
thorized to exclude attorneys’ fees or withhold only a por-
tion of his monthly benefits payments. SAppx. 37–40.
Mr. Gillilan also separately filed a TDIU claim in Jan-
uary 2017. SAppx. 62–63. The VA awarded Mr. Gillilan
TDIU benefits effective July 3, 2017, the date the VA found
Mr. Gillilan became unable to perform physical and seden-
tary employment. SAppx. 32. Mr. Gillilan challenged the
decision. He argued for an effective date of January 3,
2017, the date he filed his claim, and noted that he had
been unable to work since the March 2010 surgery.
SAppx. 29–30.
Mr. Gillilan appealed the recoupment and TDIU deci-
sions to the Board. The Board found that Mr. Gillilan was
entitled to a TDIU effective date of March 30, 2016, the
date he filed his original claim for disability compensation.
SAppx. 22–24. The Board denied his requests to offset re-
coupment to account for attorneys’ fees and to withhold
only a portion of his monthly disability payment.
SAppx. 24–26.
Mr. Gillilan then appealed to the Veterans Court. Gil-
lilan v. McDonough, No. 19-8325, 2021 WL 1884068 (Vet.
Case: 21-2254 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 05/10/2022
4 GILLILAN v. MCDONOUGH
App. May 11, 2021) (Veterans Court Decision). The court
held that because Mr. Gillilan had not filed a claim for VA
benefits prior to March 30, 2016, that was the earliest ef-
fective date for TDIU benefits under § 5110 and 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.400. Id. at *4–5. The court also affirmed the Board’s
denial of Mr. Gillilan’s request not to recoup attorneys’ fees
and to withhold only a portion of the monthly benefits be-
cause the governing provisions provide no such exceptions
and the court lacked authority to grant equitable relief. Id.
at *5–6.
In May 2021, Mr. Gillilan filed a motion for panel re-
consideration, SAppx. 4–5, that the Veterans Court
granted, SAppx. 2. On July 14, 2021, a three-judge panel
adopted the Veterans Court Decision. SAppx. 3. Mr. Gilli-
lan timely appealed to this court.
DISCUSSION
Our authority to review decisions of the Veterans Court
is limited by statute. Goodman v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d 1383,
1385 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction to review the
Veterans Court’s decision on the validity or interpretation
of a statute or regulation. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. However, we
“may not review the Veterans Court’s factual findings or
its application of law to facts absent a constitutional issue.”
Singleton v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1332, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
see also 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Accordingly, where an appeal
challenges factual determinations by the Veterans Court,
we lack subject matter jurisdiction and dismissal is re-
quired.
Mr. Gillilan presents two issues on appeal. First, he
argues that the Veterans Court erred by interpreting
38 C.F.R. § 3.400 to require the effective date to be the date
his claim was first filed rather than the date his entitle-
ment arose, and thus he is entitled to an effective date of
March 19, 2010. Appellant’s Br. at 1–3. Although Mr. Gil-
lilan frames the issue as involving a challenge to the Vet-
erans Court’s interpretation of a regulation, the Veterans
Case: 21-2254 Document: 17 Page: 5 Filed: 05/10/2022
GILLILAN v. MCDONOUGH 5
Court did not elaborate on the meaning of § 3.400 in decid-
ing Mr. Gillilan’s claim. Veterans Court Decision, at *4; see
Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (ex-
plaining that “issues of interpretation” are implicated “if
the Veterans Court elaborated the meaning of a statute or
regulation and the decision depending on that interpreta-
tion” (cleaned up)). The Veterans Court simply applied
§ 3.400 to determine the effective date of Mr. Gillilan’s ben-
efits. Veterans Court Decision, at *4. This is a factual de-
termination not subject to our review. See, e.g., Butler v.
Shinseki, 603 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that
“when a disability was claimed or service connection estab-
lished” are questions of fact “not subject to our review”); see
also Echevarria-North v. Shinseki, 437 F. App’x 941, 945
(“The Board’s determination of an effective filing date is a
finding of fact that the Veterans Court reviews for clear er-
ror, and it is a factual determination that is unreviewable
by this court.”). We thus have no jurisdiction over Mr. Gil-
lilan’s claim that he is entitled to an earlier effective date.
Nor do we have jurisdiction over Mr. Gillilan’s second
claim that recoupment of his FTCA settlement is an unfair
practice that violates the United States Constitution. Ap-
pellant’s Br. at 2 (asserting that recoupment is a “double
standard practice”); see also Appellant’s Memorandum in
lieu of Oral Argument at 1. We are unpersuaded that the
Veterans Court’s decision involves a constitutional issue.
Mr. Gillilan has not identified a constitutional issue, nor
can we discern one. See Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[An appellant’s] characterization of [a]
question as constitutional in nature does not confer upon
us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.”).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Gillilan’s remaining argu-
ments and do not find them persuasive. For the foregoing
reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Case: 21-2254 Document: 17 Page: 6 Filed: 05/10/2022
6 GILLILAN v. MCDONOUGH
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.