Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Sean Ravin, an attorney, sought fees for representing Curtis D. Skogsbergh, a veteran claiming disability benefits. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initially granted Skogsbergh a 10% disability rating, later increased to 20%. Skogsbergh, acting pro se, appealed for a higher rating and submitted a claim for total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU). The VA denied TDIU, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) did not address it in their decision. Skogsbergh retained Ravin, who represented him in an appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), which vacated the Board’s decision for not addressing TDIU.The Board later remanded the TDIU claim, and the VA granted TDIU with past-due benefits. However, the VA denied Ravin’s attorney fees, leading him to appeal to the Board, which found the fee agreement valid but denied fees, stating the Board’s decision was not final. Ravin appealed to the Veterans Court, which vacated the Board’s decision, finding the Board’s interpretation of finality incorrect but remanding for clarification on whether all fee award requirements were met.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the Veterans Court’s decision was non-final, as it remanded the case for further proceedings. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that the remand did not meet the criteria for a final decision and that the Veterans Court was within its authority to remand for clarification. View "RAVIN v. MCDONOUGH " on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the distribution of interest associated with antidumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA). Plaintiffs, who are affected domestic producers, argued that the United States Customs and Border Protection (Customs) unlawfully excluded delinquency interest from the distributions they were entitled to receive under the CDSOA. Customs had been distributing only interest charged on antidumping and countervailing duties at liquidation, as specified by 19 U.S.C. § 1677g, and not delinquency interest assessed under 19 U.S.C. § 1505(d).The United States Court of International Trade (CIT) initially dismissed claims related to distributions made more than two years before the complaints were filed, citing the statute of limitations. The CIT found that the Final Rule published by Customs in 2001 provided adequate notice of its decision to exclude delinquency interest. The CIT also denied plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration, maintaining that the Final Rule sufficiently informed the public of Customs' decision. Finally, the CIT denied plaintiffs' motions for judgment on the agency record, holding that the CDSOA did not require Customs to distribute delinquency interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the CIT's decisions. The Federal Circuit held that the Final Rule provided adequate notice of Customs' decision to exclude delinquency interest, thus supporting the CIT's dismissal of claims outside the two-year statutory period. The court also concluded that the CDSOA unambiguously excludes delinquency interest from distributions to affected producers. Therefore, the court affirmed the CIT's judgment in favor of the government, upholding Customs' practice of excluding delinquency interest from CDSOA distributions. View "ADEE HONEY FARMS v. US " on Justia Law

The case revolves around Ravi Teja, an Indian citizen, who paid thousands of dollars to enroll at the "University of Farmington," expecting to take classes. Unbeknownst to him, the University was a fictitious entity created by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as part of an undercover operation to target fraud involving student visas. When the operation came to light, the government neither provided the education Ravi had paid for nor refunded his money. Ravi filed a lawsuit against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging a breach of contract and an accompanying breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Ravi's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without addressing other issues. The court reasoned that its jurisdiction under the Tucker Act does not extend to contracts entered into by the government when acting as a sovereign unless those contracts unmistakably subject the government to damages in the event of breach. The court concluded that the government was acting in its sovereign capacity as it entered into the alleged contract in furtherance of an undercover law-enforcement operation, and that the alleged contract did not unmistakably subject the government to damages in the event of breach.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Claims Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Appeals Court concluded that the Claims Court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Tucker Act over the agreement alleged by Ravi. The court disagreed with the Claims Court's interpretation of the Tucker Act, stating that the contract in question did not concern what was promised to happen or not to happen in a different proceeding in another adjudicatory forum, and thus did not fall into the narrow exception carved out by precedent. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that other grounds not reached by the Claims Court but raised by the government as alternative bases to affirm warranted further exploration. View "RAVI v. US " on Justia Law

The case involves Hahnenkamm, LLC and the United States Forest Service. Hahnenkamm sold a parcel of land to the Forest Service. The purchase price was based on an appraisal that was supposed to comply with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, also known as the Yellow Book. Hahnenkamm later sued the Forest Service, claiming that the appraisal did not comply with the Yellow Book and was not independent, thus breaching the purchase agreement.The United States Court of Federal Claims found in favor of Hahnenkamm, ruling that the Forest Service had breached the agreement by not supporting the purchase price with an independent, Yellow Book-compliant appraisal. The court rejected the government's defenses of waiver and equitable estoppel and awarded damages to Hahnenkamm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit partially reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that Hahnenkamm could not have reasonably relied on the contractual representation that the appraisal was independent. However, the court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings to determine whether Hahnenkamm reasonably relied on the representation that the appraisal was Yellow Book-compliant. The court also remanded the lower court's rejection of the equitable estoppel defense.On cross-appeal, Hahnenkamm argued that the lower court erred in its damages determination. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's damages determination, finding no abuse of discretion in its analysis. View "HAHNENKAMM, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by Marmen Inc., Marmen Énergie Inc., Marmen Energy Co., the Government of Québec, and the Government of Canada against a decision by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce had imposed countervailing duties on imports of certain utility scale wind towers from Canada, arguing that the Canadian government had provided illegal subsidies to the producers and exporters of these towers.The case was initially reviewed by the United States Court of International Trade, which upheld the Department of Commerce's decision. The appellants then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The appellants argued that the Department of Commerce had erred in its assessment of three government programs and its computation of the sales denominator used to calculate the subsidy rate. They contended that the subsidy rate should have been de minimis, meaning it was too trivial or minor to merit consideration.The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade, ruling that the Department of Commerce's determination was supported by substantial evidence and was in accordance with the law. The court rejected the appellants' arguments, finding that the Department of Commerce had reasonably determined that the auditor's adjustment was unreliable, and that the three subsidy programs at issue did provide countervailable subsidies. View "GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC v. US " on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. Deborah A. Perlick, who was employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as a Research Health Science Specialist. During her tenure, she discovered approximately $78,000 missing from a study's funding and reported this to VA officials. Subsequently, she was terminated from her position. Perlick filed a complaint under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), and the Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board) granted her request for corrective action, awarding her back pay through March 31, 2020. However, Perlick also sought consequential and compensatory damages, including future lost earnings, which the Board denied.The Board found that Perlick had established her claim of protected whistleblowing disclosures. However, it denied her request for consequential damages, stating that such damages are limited to out-of-pocket costs and do not include non-pecuniary damages. The Board also denied Perlick's request for future lost earnings, arguing that she had no guarantees of future employment beyond the completion date of her final project with the VA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Board's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that future lost earnings are recoverable as compensatory damages under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. The court found that the Board erred by improperly raising the burden for Perlick to establish these damages, requiring her to "guarantee" future employment to recover future lost earnings. The court instructed the Board to determine under the preponderance of the evidence standard whether Perlick met her burden to prove entitlement to pecuniary compensatory damages in the form of future lost earnings. View "PERLICK v. DVA " on Justia Law

Percipient.ai, Inc., a company that offers a commercial computer vision (CV) platform, appealed a decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims that dismissed its case against the United States and CACI, Inc.-Federal. The case centered on the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's (NGA) procurement process for its SAFFIRE project, which aimed to improve its processes for obtaining and storing visual intelligence data. Percipient alleged that NGA and its contractor, CACI, violated the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) and other procurement-related statutes by not considering its commercial CV platform, Mirage, for the project.The Court of Federal Claims had dismissed Percipient's case, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the FASA task order bar, which limits protests related to the issuance of task orders. The court also rejected Percipient's arguments related to the Tucker Act, standing, and timeliness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. It held that the FASA task order bar did not apply because Percipient's protest was not connected to the issuance of a task order. The court also found that Percipient's protest fell within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, as it alleged a violation of procurement-related statutes. The court further held that Percipient had standing to bring the case and that its claims were timely. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "PERCIPIENT.AI, INC. v. US " on Justia Law

Louis Frantzis, a U.S. Army veteran, appealed a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) that denied his claim for an increased disability rating for his service-connected headaches. The Board's decision was made by a member who did not conduct the hearing, which Frantzis argued was a violation of 38 U.S.C. § 7102. He contended that the same Board member who conducts a hearing should also issue the resulting decision. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (AMA) does not require the Board member conducting the hearing to also decide the appeal.The Veterans Court's decision was based on the removal of pre-AMA language in 38 U.S.C. § 7107(c) that required the same judge conducting the hearing to issue a final determination. The court also rejected the argument that 38 U.S.C. § 7102 supports the same judge requirement because its language did not change with the enactment of the AMA. The court declined to consider the fair process doctrine because Mr. Frantzis did not raise the argument himself.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court's decision. The court agreed with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that the AMA eliminated the same judge requirement because it removed the language expressly requiring the same judge for the hearing and final determination. The court also disagreed with Mr. Frantzis' argument that 38 U.S.C. § 7102 supplies a same Board member requirement, stating that the unchanged language of § 7102 cannot be the basis for the same member requirement in the AMA system. The court concluded that the statutory scheme and its history are clear—the same judge is not required to both conduct the hearing and author the final determination under the AMA. View "FRANTZIS v. MCDONOUGH " on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Ulrich Speck and Bruno Scheller (collectively, “Speck”) and Brian L. Bates, Anthony O. Ragheb, Joseph M. Stewart IV, William J. Bourdeau, Brian D. Choules, James D. Purdy, and Neal E. Fearnot (collectively, “Bates”) over the priority of a patent related to a drug-coated balloon catheter. The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”) had previously awarded priority to Bates. Speck had argued that the claims of Bates' patent application were time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1) and invalid for lack of written description. The Board denied these motions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the Board erred in finding that Bates' patent application was not time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1). The court applied a two-way test to determine if pre-critical date claims and post-critical date claims were materially different. The court found that the post-critical date claims were materially different from the pre-critical date claims, making the patent application time-barred. The court reversed the Board's decision, vacated its order canceling the claims of Speck's patent and entering judgment on priority against Speck, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "SPECK v. BATES " on Justia Law

The case involves Mark W. Smith, a U.S. Navy veteran, who appealed a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Smith had initially filed a claim for service connection for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after his discharge from the Navy in 1991. However, his request was denied by the Regional Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 1992, and this denial was affirmed by the Board of Veterans Appeals in 1996. Smith did not appeal this decision, and it became final.In 2012, Smith filed a new claim for service connection for DVT, which was granted by the VA in 2013. In 2016, Smith filed a motion to revise the 1996 Board Decision, alleging that it was tainted by clear and unmistakable error (CUE). He argued that there was sufficient evidence in 1996 to show he had DVT, and thus his claim should have been allowed to proceed with the VA's duty to assist. However, the Board denied his motion, and this denial was affirmed by the Veterans Court.The case was then brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Smith argued that the Veterans Court had erred in its interpretation of the CUE standard in 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403, claiming that the court had incorrectly limited CUE-eligible errors to those that would have led to a grant of service connection. However, the Federal Circuit Court disagreed with Smith's interpretation and affirmed the decision of the Veterans Court. The court held that a revision or reversal based on CUE requires an error that, once corrected, alters the merits outcome of a veteran’s claim with absolute clarity. View "SMITH v. MCDONOUGH " on Justia Law