Bumgardner v. Collins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: October 16, 2025
• Docket: 24-1461
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-1461 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 10/16/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ANITA BUMGARDNER, Claimant-Appellant

v.

DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2024-1461 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 22-5111, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr. ______________________

Decided: October 16, 2025 ______________________

JOHN B. WELLS, Law Office of John B. Wells, Slidell, LA, argued for claimant-appellant.

SOSUN BAE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Divi- sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, YAAKOV ROTH; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, JONATHAN KRISCH, Office Case: 24-1461 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 10/16/2025

of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________

Before PROST, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Anita Bumgardner, surviving spouse of Army veteran Clifford Bumgardner, appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). Ms. Bumgardner’s appeal challenges the Veterans Court’s determination to affirm the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which denied service connection for Mr. Bumgardner’s cause of death and Ms. Bumgardner’s entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation. Ms. Bumgardner raises numerous issues challenging fac- tual determinations or that require the application of law to fact. She fails, however, to challenge any particular as- pect of the Veterans Court’s decision based on a rule of law or the validity or interpretation of any statute or regula- tion. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c), (d)(1); see id. § 7292(d)(2) (This court “may not review” “a challenge to a factual determina- tion” or “a challenge to a law . . . as applied to the facts of a particular case.”). 1 We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.

1 Nor has Ms. Bumgardner developed any legitimate constitutional challenge. Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[The appellant’s] characterization of [a] question as constitutional in nature does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.”).