Davis v. Collins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: July 18, 2025
• Docket: 23-2363
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-2363 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

STANLEY L. DAVIS, Claimant-Appellant

v.

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

2023-2363 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 20-5411, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr, Judge Margaret C. Bartley, Judge Scott Laurer. ______________________

Decided: July 18, 2025 ______________________

KENNETH DOJAQUEZ, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.

TANYA KOENIG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, JONATHAN KRISCH, Office of Case: 23-2363 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2025

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

Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Stanley L. Davis appeals from a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). His appeal challenges the Veterans Court’s determination that, for purposes of adjudicating Mr. Davis’s claim, the Department of Veterans Affairs did not constructively pos- sess the evidence at issue. See Davis v. McDonough, 36 Vet. App. 142, 149–53 (2023). Mr. Davis’s challenge is to the application of law to fact—specifically, the applica- tion of the constructive-possession standard as articulated in, for example, Euzebio v. McDonough, 989 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2021), to the facts of this particular case. Be- cause, in appeals from Veterans Court decisions, this court generally “may not review” “a challenge to a law . . . as ap- plied to the facts of a particular case,” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.