Brescia v. McDonald , 637 F. App'x 597 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    DAVID G. BRESCIA,
    Claimant-Appellant
    v.
    ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF
    VETERANS AFFAIRS,
    Respondent-Appellee
    ______________________
    2015-7059
    ______________________
    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
    Veterans Claims in No. 13-2780, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.
    ______________________
    Decided: February 10, 2016
    ______________________
    MAXWELL DOUGLAS KINMAN, Alexander, Webb, and
    Kinman, Mason, OH, argued for claimant-appellant.
    NATHANAEL YALE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civ-
    il Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
    ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also
    represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.
    KIRSCHMAN, JR., SCOTT D. AUSTIN; Y. KEN LEE, AMANDA R.
    BLACKMON, DAVID J. BARRANS, Office of General Counsel,
    2                                      BRESCIA   v. MCDONALD
    United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washing-
    ton, DC.
    ______________________
    Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    David G. Brescia (“Brescia”) appeals from the decision
    of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
    (“the Veterans Court”) which affirmed the May 6, 2013
    decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”)
    denying his claim for service connection for post-
    traumatic stress disorder. Brescia v. McDonald, No. 13-
    2780, 
    2015 WL 307028
     (Vet. App. Jan. 26, 2015). Specifi-
    cally, Brescia argues that: (1) the Board and the Veterans
    Court improperly ignored or downgraded certain lay
    evidence he submitted in support of his service connection
    claim; and (2) the Department of Veterans Affairs failed
    to comply with the Board’s prior remand order.
    Because Brescia’s arguments on appeal concern only
    challenges to factual determinations or, at most, the
    application of law to the facts of his case, we lack jurisdic-
    tion. See 
    38 U.S.C. § 7292
    (d)(2) (2012); see also Dyment v.
    Principi, 
    287 F.3d 1377
    , 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding
    that the claimant’s disagreement with the Veterans Court
    over whether a specialist complied with the Board’s
    remand order was a factual challenge beyond our jurisdic-
    tion); Chest v. Peake, 283 F. App’x 814, 817 (Fed. Cir.
    2008) (“[W]hether or not the remand order was substan-
    tially fulfilled—is not a question that can be reviewed
    without our examining the Veterans Court’s application of
    law to fact, a task that we are prohibited from undertak-
    ing.”). We therefore dismiss this appeal.
    DISMISSED
    COSTS
    No costs.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-7059

Citation Numbers: 637 F. App'x 597

Filed Date: 2/10/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023