Hunt v. Shinseki

Opinion

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________

ROBERT L. HUNT, Claimant-Appellant, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee. __________________________

2009-7134 __________________________

Petition for review of the Court of Appeals for Veter- ans Claims No. 07-2587, Judge Lawrence B. Hagel ____________________________

Decided: June 15, 2010 ____________________________

VIRGINIA A. GIRARD-BRADY, ABS Legal Advocates, P.A., of Lawrence, Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant.

SAMEER YERAWADEKAR, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depart- ment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respon- dent-appellee. With him on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Direc- tor, and MARTIN F. HOCKEY, Assistant Director. Of coun- HUNT v. DVA 2

sel on the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and DANA RAFFAELLI, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, of Washington, DC. __________________________

Before LOURIE, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Hunt appeals from the decision of the Court of Ap- peals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) denying entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability. Hunt v. Shinseki, No. 07-2587 (Vet. App. July 1, 2009). Hunt argues that the Veterans Court erred in its interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) by accepting the reasons and bases set forth by the Board for rejecting certain evidence and by not independently reviewing those reasons for adequacy and justification. In effect, Hunt is asking this court to review factual deter- minations. Such review is outside the scope of our juris- diction. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss.

DISMISSED