Robison v. Collins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: June 2, 2026
• Docket: 25-1328
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-1328 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 06/02/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LINDA KAY ROBISON, Claimant-Appellant

v.

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

2025-1328 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 23-5922, Judge Coral Wong Pi- etsch. ______________________

Decided: June 2, 2026 ______________________

ROBERT C. BROWN, JR., Tommy Klepper & Associates, PLLC, Norman, OK, for claimant-appellant.

REBECCA TAYLOR MITCHELL, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre- sented by MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE; TYRONE COLLIER, DEREK SCADDEN, Office Case: 25-1328 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 06/02/2026

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

Before LOURIE, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Linda Kay Robison appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) dismissing a claim of clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in a May 1999 rating decision that awarded non-service-connected pension benefits to her now-deceased spouse, veteran Gerald Glen Robison. See Robison v. McDonough, No. 23- 5922, 2024 WL 4539849 (Vet. App. Oct. 22, 2024) (“Veterans Court Decision”); see also J.A. 5–10 (“Board Decision”). Because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we dismiss. BACKGROUND Veteran Robison served in the United States Air Force from January 1962 to January 1966. Veterans Court Decision, 2024 WL 4539849, at *1. In May 1999, he was awarded non-service-connected pension benefits. Id. He passed away in June 2007. Id. In August 2020, appellant Robison filed a claim alleging CUE in the May 1999 rating decision. Id. After the Veterans Affairs Regional Office denied her claim, she appealed to the Board. See id.; J.A. 24–26. The Board dismissed Robison’s claim because she was not the claimant––i.e., veteran Robison––and so she lacked standing to file the CUE claim. See Veterans Court Decision, 2024 WL 4539849, at *1; Board Decision, J.A. 7–8. Robison then appealed to the Veterans Court. Veterans Court Decision, 2024 WL 4539849, at *1. Case: 25-1328 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 06/02/2026

ROBISON v. COLLINS 3

On appeal to the Veterans Court, Robison acknowledged that, under our precedent, she did not have standing to bring her CUE claim. Id. (first citing Haines v. West, 154 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1998); and then citing Crews v. McDonough, 63 F.4th 27, 41 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). She did not identify any error in law or fact with the Board’s decision. Id. The Veterans Court accordingly affirmed the Board’s dismissal of her CUE claim. Id. at 2. Robison appealed to our court. DISCUSSION Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court with respect to a rule of law or interpretation of a statute or regulation relied on by the Veterans Court in its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). However, except with respect to constitutional issues, we may not review challenges to factual determinations or challenges to the application of a law or regulation to the facts of a case. Id. § 7292(d)(2). “[B]y the express terms of [38 U.S.C. § 5109A(d)], a survivor has no standing to request review of a decision affecting the disability benefits of a veteran on the ground of CUE; the survivor is not the disability benefits claimant.” Haines, 154 F.3d at 1301; see also Crews, 63 F.4th at 41 (explaining that 38 U.S.C. § 5121A, which provides for substitution in the event of the death of a claimant, “does not allow a survivor to bring a CUE claim that was not previously raised”). Here, Robison concedes that such precedent “bar[s] similarly situated widows from presenting CUE claims.” Robison Open. Br. 4 (first citing Haines, 154 F.3d at 1301; and then citing Crews, 63 F.4th at 41); see also id. at 10. Given that concession, Robison is in essence asking us to determine whether the Veterans Court correctly applied Haines and Crews to her case. That argument does not bring her appeal under our jurisdiction, Case: 25-1328 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 06/02/2026

as it is a challenge to the Veterans Court’s application of our law to the facts of Robison’s case. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss. 1 CONCLUSION We have considered Robison’s remaining arguments but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.

1 Even if we had jurisdiction, Robison does not argue that her case is distinguishable from Haines and Crews. See Robison Open. Br. 16. She asks only that the panel re- verse that precedent but does not point us to any interven- ing decision. Id. at 5–8. We thus cannot do so, as we are “bound by the determinations of a prior panel, unless re- lieved of that obligation by an en banc order of the court or a decision of the Supreme Court.” See Deckers Corp. v. United States, 752 F.3d 949, 959 (Fed. Cir. 2014).