Case ID: f-appx_117/html/0766-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank L. HENDERSON, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-7112.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Jan. 14, 2005.
    Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Haldane Robert Mayer vacated the position of Chief Judge on December 24, 2004.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Frank L. Henderson (“Henderson”) appeals the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), which affirmed the Board of Veterans Appeals’ (“board”) decision denying Henderson’s allegations of clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”). Henderson v. Principi 18 Vet.App. 498 (Vet.App. 2004). We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

We review the judgment of the Veterans Court pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), which limits our reconsideration to questions of law. See Herndon v. Principi 311 F.3d 1121, 1123-24 (Fed.Cir.2002). We may review a challenge to a factual determination or a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of Henderson’s appeal only to the extent that it presents a constitutional issue. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) (2000); Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed.Cir.1999). Henderson, a Korean War veteran, has pursued a claim for compensable disability resulting from a burn sustained to the back of his right hand in 1951. In 1960, the Regional Office (“RO”) granted service connection for his bum. The RO and the board have repeatedly denied his appeals for a compensable disability rating. Henderson now asserts that the decisions were the result of CUE because the RO and board did not properly consider his medical records, and that the board’s evidentiary determinations violated his right to due process. Henderson’s claim is purely factual, raises no cognizable due process issue, and, therefore, is not appropriate for disposition by this court. See Heifer, 174 F.3d at 1335-36.