March 2026 - Federal Circuit

Featuring: Mackey v. Collins and Janich v. Collins

Mackey v. Collins (24-1854) (CAVC No. 22-5693) | Decided on March 30, 2026

In addressing whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) properly affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denial of the Appellant’s SMC claim under § 1114(s), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) analyzed whether the phrase “a service-connected disability” under § 1114(s) could be interpreted “to encompass all TDIU ratings, regardless [of[ whether based on one underlying disability or multiple underlying disabilities.”

The Federal Circuit ultimately rejected the Appellant’s argument that for purposes of § 1114(s), the Appellant with TDIU could combine various disabilities to constitute a service-connected disability under § 1114(s). The Federal Circuit specifically analyzed the language under § 1114(s), which provides, “If the veteran has a service-connected disability rated as total . . . ,” and determined that the use of the article “a” and the singular term “disability” suggests that Congress intended to reference one disability rather than multiple disabilities. The Federal Circuit further determined a TDIU rating predicated on multiple disabilities cannot be combined to meet the “a service-connected disability rated as total” requirement under § 1114(s).

Janich v. Collins, (22-5960) | Decided on March 5, 2026

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) erred in determining that a lack of evidentiary basis for the VA’s finding that the veteran could perform certain occupations was per se harmless error. The Federal Circuit clarified that under Smith v. Shinseki, VA may be required in some cases to identify particular jobs that a veteran is capable of performing in order to determine whether the veteran is able to secure or follow substantially gainful employment for purposes of TDIU.

When VA makes this finding without a sufficient evidentiary basis, the harmless error analysis turns on whether the VA relied on the identification of the particular occupation in reaching its decision. If VA makes a finding without evidentiary support and relies on that finding in deciding the claim, the error cannot be said to be harmless.