In this published order, the Court considered a petition asking it to establish a class action procedure, along with the Secretary’s motion to consolidate the appeal with another case for purposes of the petition. The Court denied the petition, explaining that under the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act its jurisdiction is limited to review of Board of Veterans’ Appeals decisions, that the Court has no trial de novo authority, and that each adversely affected person must file a notice of appeal from a BVA decision. The Court also reasoned that class actions would be unmanageable and unnecessary because published opinions already have precedential effect in pending and future cases. Judge Kramer concurred in the result, stating that while a narrow class-action rule might be possible for petitioners within the VJRA’s jurisdictional limits, the Court could not extend such a procedure to persons without claims, with pending VA claims lacking BVA decisions, or with final VA decisions outside the Court’s jurisdiction.

The Court cannot adopt a class-action procedure that exceeds the jurisdiction conferred by the VJRA, which limits judicial review to individual adverse BVA decisions.

The case reinforces that CAVC litigation is jurisdictionally individual, not representative, and that jurisdictional limits cannot be bypassed by procedural innovation.

Harrison is a foundational jurisdiction case for understanding the limits of CAVC power. It is useful when litigants seek procedural mechanisms that would expand the Court’s review beyond appeals from individual Board decisions, or when parties argue that precedent should be implemented through a class structure rather than ordinary appellate review.

A veteran advocacy group asks the Court to certify a class of claimants, including people whose claims are still pending at the RO level. Harrison is cited to show the Court lacks authority to create that kind of class-action process under the VJRA.

Use this case to oppose attempts to enlarge CAVC jurisdiction through representative litigation or to explain why precedential decisions, not class certification, are the proper tool for systemic change.

38 U.S.C. §§ 7252, 7261(c), 7266, 7269(a)-(b)