`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`WILLIAM D. COWAN,
`Claimant-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
`VETERANS AFFAIRS,
`Respondent-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2022-2227
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
`Veterans Claims in No. 20-6227, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
`Jr, Judge Joseph L. Toth, Judge Michael P. Allen.
`______________________
`
`Decided: April 8, 2024
`______________________
`
`KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Law Offices of Carpenter
`Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.
`
` ERIC P. BRUSKIN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
`Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
`ton, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented
`by SOSUN BAE, BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE
`HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN,
`
`
`
`Case: 22-2227 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 04/08/2024
`
`2
`
`COWAN v. MCDONOUGH
`
`ANDREW J. STEINBERG, Office of General Counsel, United
`States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
` ______________________
`
`Before DYK, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
`REYNA, Circuit Judge.
`William D. Cowan appeals a decision of the United
`States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
`Court”), which remanded in part Mr. Cowan’s case to the
`Board of Veterans’ Appeals for further consideration. See
`Cowan v. McDonough, 35 Vet. App. 232, 249 (2022). We
`generally decline to review a decision by the Veterans
`Court that remands a case because such a decision is not a
`final judgment. Williams v. Principi, 275 F.3d 1361, 1364
`(Fed. Cir. 2002). We deviate from this rule when the deci-
`sion at issue meets three narrow requirements. Id. The
`first requirement is a “clear and final decision [from the
`Veterans Court] of a legal issue that [] is separate from the
`remand proceedings.” Id. (internal footnote omitted).
`Here, Mr. Cowan appeals the portion of the Veterans
`Court’s decision concerning the sufficiency of notice to a
`veteran required under 38 U.S.C. § 5104. Appellant Br.
`14–17. However, the Veterans Court remanded to the
`Board to further consider whether the Department of Vet-
`erans Affairs provided sufficient notice to Mr. Cowan under
`this statute. Cowan, 35 Vet. App. at 244, 249. Thus, be-
`cause the merits of Mr. Cowan’s appeal before this court
`are intertwined with the issue currently pending on re-
`mand before the Board, Mr. Cowan fails to meet the first
`requirement under Williams. Mr. Cowan’s case also fails
`to meet the third requirement of Williams, that there is a
`substantial risk that the Veterans Court’s decision would
`not survive a remand, i.e., that the remand proceeding may
`moot the issue. Williams, 275 F.3d at 1364. The same is-
`sue will be presented after the remand if Mr. Cowan is un-
`successful. The Veterans Court’s decision is thus not
`
`
`
`Case: 22-2227 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 04/08/2024
`
`COWAN v. MCDONOUGH
`
`3
`
`sufficiently final for purposes of our review. We dismiss
`the appeal.
`
`DISMISSED
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
