De Ramos v. Shinseki

358 F. App'x 167
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedDecember 18, 2009
Docket2009-7072
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 358 F. App'x 167 (De Ramos v. Shinseki) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
De Ramos v. Shinseki, 358 F. App'x 167 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Opinion

*168 PER CURIAM.

Luz Velez de Ramos, the spouse and court-appointed guardian of Luis A. de Ramos, seeks review of a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying service connection for her husband’s acquired psychiatric disorder. See De Ramos v. Shinseki, No. 07-0857, 2009 WL 278832, 2009 U.S.App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 89 (Feb. 5, 2009). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Our authority to review a decision of the Veterans Court is limited by statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We may review such a decision only to the extent that it pertains to “the validity of any statute or regulation ... or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter),” or “to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision.” Id. §§ 7292(a), 7292(c). Absent a constitutional issue, we do not have jurisdiction to review either “a challenge to a factual determination” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2); see McGee v. Peake, 511 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2008). Because de Ramos’ appeal presents only challenges to factual determinations regarding whether her husband’s psychiatric disorder was incurred in service, it falls outside the scope of our appellate authority.

No costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Prinkey v. Shinseki
735 F.3d 1375 (Federal Circuit, 2013)
Elliott v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs
415 F. App'x 251 (Federal Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
358 F. App'x 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-ramos-v-shinseki-cafc-2009.