Key Points

  • The Federal Circuit dismissed Mary L. Evans's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because she challenged only the Veterans Court's application of waiver law to the facts, which 38 U.S.C. ยง 7292(d)(2) places outside the court's review.
  • The panel held that the Veterans Court denied reconsideration on waiver grounds, not under the favorable-finding doctrine, so any statement about that doctrine had no bearing on the decision and was not reviewable.
  • Ms. Evans's reply brief cited a nonexistent case, Magyar v. Principi; a corrected brief substituted Sears v. Principi, which the court said never mentions waiver or forfeiture, and counsel could not explain either citation at argument.
  • The court warned that use of artificial intelligence or other tools that results in hallucinated citations in briefs could impact lawyers' continued practice before the court.
  • The panel noted that Ms. Evans may still seek board reconsideration or regional-office readjudication to pursue an earlier effective date for the myeloma claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit warned on Monday that lawyers whose briefs contain hallucinated citations "could impact their continued practice before the court," delivering the caution in an opinion that threw out a Marine veteran's widow's bid for an earlier effective date on a multiple myeloma claim.

Judge Prost, writing for a panel that also included Chief Judge Moore and Judge Taranto, held that the court lacked jurisdiction over Mary L. Evans's appeal. Her challenge, the panel concluded, attacked only how the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims applied settled waiver law to the facts of her case. Federal law bars the Federal Circuit from reviewing that kind of fact-bound ruling unless a constitutional claim is raised.

The warning grew out of a citation in Ms. Evans's reply brief to "Magyar v. Principi," a purported 2003 Federal Circuit decision that, the court wrote, "does not exist." A "corrected" brief swapped in a real case that the court said "never mentions the doctrines of waiver or forfeiture," and at oral argument her lawyer could not explain either citation. The opinion did not say whether artificial intelligence produced the Magyar citation, and it did not impose a sanction. It does put the court on record that such errors can bear on a lawyer's standing to keep practicing there.

Wilbert Evans served in the Marine Corps from March 1960 to March 1964. He was stationed in Japan, where, as a postal clerk, he contended he was required to fly to Vietnam to deliver mail about twice a week. In 2004 he sought service-connected disability benefits for multiple myeloma and diabetes, based in part on alleged herbicide exposure in Vietnam. A Department of Veterans Affairs regional office denied the claims that year. He later sought to reopen them, and the regional office denied them again, most recently in September 2022.

Ms. Evans, his surviving spouse, appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. On July 27, 2023, the board granted service connection for multiple myeloma, but only because of exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. It denied the diabetes claim.

Her brief to the Veterans Court addressed only diabetes, arguing that the board wrongly found no evidence corroborating her husband's Vietnam service. On Oct. 25, 2024, the Veterans Court agreed and reversed. In a footnote, it described the myeloma grant as "a favorable finding that we do not disturb."

Ms. Evans then asked the court to reconsider, arguing that the Vietnam finding, applied to the myeloma claim, "would result in an earlier effective date." On Nov. 19, 2024, the Veterans Court refused. It said she had "never asked [the court] to set aside and remand the Board's grant of service connection for myeloma." It held the myeloma arguments waived.

Before the Federal Circuit, Ms. Evans argued that the Veterans Court had misread the favorable-finding doctrine, which rests on a statute that bars that court from reversing a board fact finding unless it is "adverse to the claimant." Judge Prost wrote that the contention "is belied by the record," because the lower court denied reconsideration on waiver grounds. Any remark about favorability, she wrote, "had no bearing on the court's decision" and so could not be reviewed.

The panel also rejected the argument that the waiver ruling itself rested on a legal error. Judge Prost wrote that Ms. Evans's own descriptions of the issue "all but confirm that the present dispute involves, at most, the routine application of waiver law to the facts of this case." At argument, her lawyer conceded that whether something was waived is outside the court's review.

Ms. Evans's reply brief asserted that the Federal Circuit "has previously affirmed that the appropriate application of waiver and forfeiture doctrine constitutes a question of law falling within this Court's purview," citing Magyar. On Sept. 7, 2026, her counsel filed a corrected reply brief substituting Sears v. Principi under the same reporter citation. The next day, the court ordered counsel to "be prepared to discuss the citation to Magyar v. Principi (and counsel's subsequent attempts to 'correct' the citation) at oral argument."

According to the opinion, counsel at argument "was unable to answer how the nonexistent Magyar case appeared in the reply brief, why the irrelevant Sears case was substituted for it, or otherwise provide any case that supported the proposition" for which Magyar and Sears were cited. The panel followed with a one-sentence paragraph: "Lawyers should be mindful that use of artificial intelligence or other tools that results in hallucinated citations appearing in briefs to this court could impact their continued practice before the court."

"In reality, we have repeatedly held that review of waiver determinations by the Veterans Court lies outside the bounds of our narrow statutory jurisdiction," Judge Prost wrote. "We see no basis to depart from this well-established understanding of our jurisdiction; Ms. Evans certainly provides us with none."

The panel noted that Ms. Evans still has routes back to the agency. The government acknowledged that she can ask the board to reconsider based on an obvious error of fact, or ask the regional office to readjudicate in light of the ruling that Mr. Evans served in Vietnam. At argument, government counsel said that "in all likelihood, the [earlier] effective date would be granted."

Ms. Evans's lawyer argued those options may bring "delays and issues." Judge Prost wrote: "Such concerns, whether valid or not, cannot vest this court with jurisdiction it otherwise lacks."

Sean P. Griffin of West & Dunn, LLC argued for Ms. Evans. Meredyth Cohen Havasy of the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department's Civil Division argued for the government.

The court dismissed the appeal and awarded no costs. The case is Evans v. Collins, No. 2025-1403. Any further pursuit of the earlier effective date for the myeloma claim now runs through the board or the regional office, not the Federal Circuit.