## Facts

- Petitioners were a veterans’ advocacy organization (NOVA) and individual veterans; the respondent was the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
- Petitioners sought direct review under 38 U.S.C. § 502 of two VA interpretations affecting disability ratings for knee conditions.
- The first challenged interpretation was an M21-1 manual provision implementing 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5257 (knee instability), which set a standardized approach using measured joint movement to classify instability as “slight,” “moderate,” or “severe.”
- Petitioners contended the DC 5257 manual provision imposed a rigid metric inconsistent with the regulation’s terms.
- The second challenged interpretation was VA guidance published in the Federal Register, and a related M21-1 provision, interpreting DC 5055 (prosthetic knee replacement) to apply only to total knee replacements and not partial replacements.
- Petitioners asserted DC 5055 was ambiguous on partial replacements and argued VA’s interpretation was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- The en banc court limited this decision to threshold questions about jurisdiction, reviewability, and standing for challenges to VA interpretive rules under § 502.

## Issues

1. Whether interpretive guidance in VA manuals and published guidance can qualify as a “rule or regulation” of “general applicability” reviewable in the Federal Circuit under 38 U.S.C. § 502.
2. Whether § 502 review is limited to rules that are formally binding on VA adjudicators.
3. Whether petitioners must establish Article III standing separately for each challenged interpretive rule.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit (en banc) held that § 502 permits direct review of VA interpretive rules of general applicability, including guidance contained in the M21-1 manual.
- The court rejected the Secretary’s argument that reviewability under § 502 requires that the challenged rule be legally binding on the agency or its adjudicators.
- The court concluded the DC 5257 knee-instability manual provision was an interpretive rule of general applicability subject to § 502 review.
- The court treated the DC 5055 published guidance and associated manual provision as reviewable interpretive materials subject to APA-based challenges, contingent on standing.
- The court emphasized that standing must be established for each particular challenged rule, not assumed based on a general interest in veterans’ benefits administration.

## Legal Principles

- 38 U.S.C. § 502 authorizes direct Federal Circuit review of VA actions fitting within the statute’s channeling of APA-referenced rulemaking and publication categories; reviewability does not turn on whether the agency labels the material “nonbinding.”
- A “general applicability” inquiry focuses on whether the interpretation is designed to govern a class of cases and is intended for broad use in adjudication, including when directed to agency personnel through internal manuals.
- Interpretive rules may be reviewable under § 502 even when issued without notice-and-comment procedures.
- Article III standing must be shown for each challenged interpretive rule by demonstrating injury in fact, causation, and redressability as to that specific rule.

## Conclusion

The en banc Federal Circuit clarified that generally applicable VA interpretive guidance— including M21-1 manual provisions—can be directly reviewed under 38 U.S.C. § 502 without a binding-effect requirement, while requiring petitioners to prove standing separately for each challenged interpretation.


Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. v. Sec'y of Veterans Affs., 981 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (en banc)