Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BRESCIA v. McDONALD, 2015-7059. (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Number: infco20160210165 Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 10, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 10, 2016
Summary: This disposition is nonprecedential PER CURIAM . David G. Brescia ("Brescia") appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("the Veterans Court") which affirmed the May 6, 2013 decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals ("the Board") denying his claim for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder. Brescia v. McDonald, No. 13-2780, 2015 WL 307028 (Vet. App. Jan. 26, 2015). Specifically, Brescia argues that: (1) the Board and the Veterans Cou
More

This disposition is nonprecedential

David G. Brescia ("Brescia") appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("the Veterans Court") which affirmed the May 6, 2013 decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals ("the Board") denying his claim for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder. Brescia v. McDonald, No. 13-2780, 2015 WL 307028 (Vet. App. Jan. 26, 2015). Specifically, Brescia argues that: (1) the Board and the Veterans Court improperly ignored or downgraded certain lay evidence he submitted in support of his service connection claim; and (2) the Department of Veterans Affairs failed to comply with the Board's prior remand order.

Because Brescia's arguments on appeal concern only challenges to factual determinations or, at most, the application of law to the facts of his case, we lack jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) (2012); see also Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the claimant's disagreement with the Veterans Court over whether a specialist complied with the Board's remand order was a factual challenge beyond our jurisdiction); Chest v. Peake, 283 F. App'x 814, 817 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("[W]hether or not the remand order was substantially fulfilled—is not a question that can be reviewed without our examining the Veterans Court's application of law to fact, a task that we are prohibited from undertaking."). We therefore dismiss this appeal.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer