Case: 20-2113 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 07/14/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FRANCIS J. SAMPSON, JR.,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2020-2113
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-1638, Judge Michael P. Allen.
______________________
Decided: July 14, 2021
______________________
FRANCIS J. SAMPSON, JR., Duxbury, MA, pro se.
EVAN WISSER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di-
vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by JEFFREY
B. CLARK, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR., LOREN MISHA
PREHEIM; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, JULIE HONAN, Office of Gen-
eral Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Af-
fairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 20-2113 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 07/14/2021
2 SAMPSON v. MCDONOUGH
Before NEWMAN, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Francis J. Sampson, Jr. served honorably in the United
States Army from August 1967 to June 1969. On August
31, 2000, Mr. Sampson filed a claim for benefits for service-
related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Mr. Sampson’s claim made no mention of sleep apnea,
though it contained evidence that he had difficulty sleep-
ing. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) subse-
quently granted benefits for PTSD with an effective date of
August 31, 2000. Fourteen years later, after repeatedly
challenging the rating of his PTSD claim, Mr. Sampson
sought benefits for sleep apnea as connected to his service-
related PTSD. The VA then granted Mr. Sampson sleep
apnea-related benefits with an effective date of March 31,
2013.
Mr. Sampson now contends that he is entitled to an Au-
gust 31, 2000 effective date for his sleep apnea benefits, ar-
guing that his original claim was sufficient to constitute an
informal claim for benefits related to sleep apnea. The
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) up-
held the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of the earlier
effective date based on its finding that Mr. Sampson’s orig-
inal claim did not show an intent to claim benefits for sleep
apnea. See Sampson v. Wilkie, No. 19-1638,
2020 WL
2296966, at *2 (Vet. App. May 8, 2020); see also Sellers v.
Wilkie,
965 F.3d 1328, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The essential
requirements of any claim, whether formal or informal are:
(1) an intent to apply for benefits, (2) an indication of the
benefits sought, and (3) a communication in writing.”)
(quoting Browoski v. Shinseki,
23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009)).
The Veterans Court noted that Mr. Sampson’s initial claim
specifically requested that the VA “consider this an appli-
cation for service connected disability for PTSD.”
Sampson,
2020 WL 2296966, at *2. And while the record
contained evidence that Mr. Sampson had difficulty
Case: 20-2113 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 07/14/2021
SAMPSON v. MCDONOUGH 3
sleeping, the Veterans Court found no documents contem-
poraneous with medical records that could be read as indi-
cating an intent by Mr. Sampson to seek benefits for his
sleep apnea. See
id. Additionally, Mr. Sampson’s multiple
claims to increase his PTSD-disability rating between 2000
and 2014 never mentioned sleep apnea. See
id.
Our ability to review decisions from the Veterans Court
is limited by
38 U.S.C. § 7292. We have jurisdiction to “re-
view and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute
or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to inter-
pret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent
presented and necessary to a decision.” § 7292(c). But we
lack jurisdiction to “review (A) a challenge to a factual de-
termination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as
applied to the facts of a particular case,” unless those chal-
lenges present constitutional issues. § 7292(d)(2).
Mr. Sampson does not challenge the validity of any
statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof. Nor
does Mr. Sampson contend his challenge presents a consti-
tutional issue. Rather, Mr. Sampson broadly challenges
the Veterans Court’s determination that his original appli-
cation failed to constitute an informal claim for sleep apnea
benefits related to his service-related PTSD. To the extent
Mr. Sampson’s appeal rests on a challenge to a law or reg-
ulation as applied to the facts of his case, we lack jurisdic-
tion to consider it. See Ellington v. Peake,
541 F.3d 1364,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To the extent his appeal contends
that the Veterans Court did not apply the correct legal re-
quirements for determining whether Mr. Sampson had
filed an informal claim in 2000 for sleep apnea, we detect
no legal error.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
