Sudranski v. Derwinski — Court lacks jurisdiction where the asserted NOD could not have generated the already-final BVA decision

This designated-for-publication order addressed whether the Court could exercise jurisdiction over an appeal premised on a purported Notice of Disagreement filed after the Board of Veterans’ Appeals had already completed review and issued a final decision. The Court denied reconsideration and en banc review, explaining in a per curiam statement that it would be a legal error to assume jurisdiction on the basis of an NOD that could not have been filed until the Board review the NOD was meant to generate had already ended. The accompanying separate opinions debated the reach of Whitt v. Derwinski and Chadwick v. Derwinski, but the operative disposition left the jurisdictional dismissal in place. The practical lesson is that the administrative sequence matters: an NOD must function as the statutory trigger for appellate review, not as a post hoc jurisdictional device after final Board action.

A Notice of Disagreement cannot supply Court jurisdiction if, by timing and procedural posture, it could not have been filed until after the Board decision it was intended to initiate had already become final.

Jurisdiction depends on the proper administrative sequence. A post-decision filing cannot be repurposed to create appellate jurisdiction after the Board’s decision is already final.

It reinforces the strict jurisdictional nature of the VA appellate scheme and helps practitioners identify defective appeal paths before filing in the Court. It is especially useful when evaluating whether an asserted NOD actually precedes the Board action it is supposed to challenge.

Assuming appellate jurisdiction from a filing that was not timely or procedurally capable of initiating Board review.

A claimant sends a notice to the RO after the Board has already issued a final decision on the same issue and later argues that the document should support Court jurisdiction. Under Sudranski, that sequence cannot create jurisdiction if the filing could not have triggered the Board appeal in the first place.

Use this case to challenge attempts to manufacture jurisdiction from late or misdirected filings and to emphasize the statutory role of the NOD in the VA administrative appeals process.

Whitt v. Derwinski, Chadwick v. Derwinski