Bobby J. Hancock, Claimant-appellant, v. Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-appellee, 17 F.3d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 17 F.3d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Jan. 10, 1994

Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and ARCHER, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.


ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(e) and to dismiss Bobby J. Hancock's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Hancock has not responded.

The Board of Veterans Appeals denied Hancock's claim for service connection for gastrointestinal disorder. The Court of Veterans Appeals vacated the Board's decision and remanded the case to the Board to assist the veteran in developing his case, perform a medical examination, and consider other claims for service connection made by Hancock. Hancock appeals to this court.

It appears that Hancock may not have understood that his case was sent back to the Board to give him an opportunity to develop additional evidence that might help Hancock prove his entitlement to benefits. Because Hancock's case was remanded to the Board, the Court of Veterans Appeals' order was not a final, appealable order.

In Travelstead v. Derwinski, 978 F.2d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1992), we stated that, although orders remanding to an administrative agency for further proceedings are not normally final or appealable, a remand order may be recognized as final to insure that the court of appeals will be able to review an important legal question that the remand would make effectively unreviewable. Here, that concern is not applicable. Hancock may appeal any future adverse decision of the Board to the Court of Veterans Appeals and, if appropriate, may then appeal to this court.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary's motion to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(e) is granted.

(2) The Secretary's motion to dismiss is granted.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.