Aspry v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs , 465 F. App'x 959 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    __________________________
    ROBERT ASPRY, JR.,
    Claimant-Appellant,
    v.
    ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
    AFFAIRS,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    __________________________
    2011-7137
    __________________________
    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
    Veterans Claims in case no. 08-3020, Judge William A.
    Moorman.
    __________________________
    Decided: February 23, 2012
    __________________________
    SANDRA W. WISCHOW, Goodman, Allen & Filetti, of
    Richmond, Virginia, argued for claimant-appellant.
    MICHAEL P. GOODMAN, Trial Attorney, Commercial
    Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depart-
    ment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respon-
    dent-appellee. On the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant
    ASPRY   v. DVA                                             2
    Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, BRIAN
    M. SIMKIN, Assistant Director, and SCOTT D. AUSTIN,
    Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were MICHAEL
    J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and
    RACHAEL T. SHENKMAN, Attorney, United States Depart-
    ment of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.
    __________________________
    Before PROST, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    Robert Aspry, Jr., appeals the decision of the United
    States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
    Court”), denying his claim based on hearing loss. Al-
    though Mr. Aspry frames the issue on appeal as whether
    the Veterans Court applied the correct legal standard, in
    effect he disagrees with the application of the “clear and
    unmistakable evidence” standard of 
    38 U.S.C. § 1111
     to
    the facts of his case. We do not have jurisdiction to re-
    view the Veterans Court’s application of the law to the
    facts unless it presents a constitutional issue. Jackson v.
    Shinseki, 
    587 F.3d 1106
    , 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 
    38 U.S.C. § 7292
    (d)(2); cf. Livingston v. Derwinski, 
    959 F.2d 224
    ,
    225 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he mere recitation of a basis for
    jurisdiction by either party or a court[] is not controlling;
    we must look to the true nature of the action.”).
    Accordingly, we dismiss Mr. Apsry’s appeal for lack of
    jurisdiction.
    COSTS
    Each party shall bear its own costs.
    DISMISSED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2011-7137

Citation Numbers: 465 F. App'x 959

Judges: Mayer, Per Curiam, Prost, Reyna

Filed Date: 2/23/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023