## Facts

- Jimmy D. Adams entered active service in the U.S. Navy in 1992 after a pre-induction medical examination that did not note the hormonal conditions later claimed.
- During service, Adams was diagnosed with hormonal disorders, including hypogonadism and growth hormone deficiency, and he was later discharged as medically unfit for duty based on those conditions (among others).
- While discharge proceedings were pending, Adams filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) seeking service-connected disability compensation for hypogonadism, hypothyroidism, and growth hormone deficiency.
- After a compensation examination, the VA regional office denied service connection, and Adams appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board).
- The Board remanded the case to the regional office for additional medical development, including an examination by a VA endocrinologist addressing whether Adams’s conditions began in service or were otherwise related to service.
- A VA endocrinologist examined Adams and reported that there was evidence the conditions “may have” preexisted service.
- Relying on that report, the regional office again denied service connection. The Board affirmed the denial, treating the medical report as sufficient to show the disabilities clearly preexisted service.
- Adams appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), which held the Board’s conclusion on preexistence was premature, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded for further development of the record and readjudication.
- Adams then appealed the Veterans Court’s remand order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the presumption of soundness entitled him to service connection as a matter of law and that the Veterans Court should have ordered benefits rather than remanding.

## Issues

1. Does the Federal Circuit have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292 to review a Veterans Court decision that vacates a Board decision and remands for further evidentiary development and readjudication?
2. If jurisdiction exists, did the presumption of soundness in 38 U.S.C. § 1111 require an award of service connection as a matter of law based on the existing record?

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit dismissed Adams’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court held that the Veterans Court’s order vacating the Board decision and remanding for additional evidentiary development was not a “final decision” reviewable under 38 U.S.C. § 7292.
- The court held that the narrow exception allowing review of some remand orders did not apply because the Veterans Court did not finally resolve Adams’s entitlement as a matter of law and did not direct the Board to deny the claim.
- Because it lacked jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit did not reach Adams’s presumption-of-soundness argument or otherwise decide whether his conditions were incurred in or aggravated by service.

## Legal Principles

- The Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited by statute to review of “final decisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292.
- A decision is generally final only when it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing to do except execute the judgment; a remand for further evidence and readjudication ordinarily is not final.
- A limited category of remand orders may be treated as effectively final when the Veterans Court conclusively decides a legal issue that ends entitlement, leaving the Board with only a ministerial task (such as entering a denial required as a matter of law).
- When the Veterans Court remands for additional fact development or further agency adjudication, Federal Circuit review would create piecemeal appeals inconsistent with the statutory structure; review must wait until the agency and the Veterans Court have issued decisions that finally resolve entitlement.

## Conclusion

Adams v. Principi holds that the Federal Circuit could not review Adams’s appeal because the Veterans Court’s order vacating the Board’s denial and remanding for further evidentiary development was not a final decision under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, and the court therefore dismissed without reaching whether the presumption of soundness required an immediate award of benefits.


Adams v. Principi, 256 F.3d 1318 (2001)