Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02450/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02450-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dawn Marie Moore
Appellant
Robert L. Wilkie
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DAWN MARIE MOORE,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT L. WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2019-2450

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 18-1005, Judge Michael P. Allen.

______________________

Decided: April 7, 2020

______________________

DAWN MARIE MOORE, New Boston, TX, pro se. 

 DAVID MICHAEL KERR, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

JOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR., LOREN 

MISHA PREHEIM; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, EVAN SCOTT GRANT, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

 ______________________

Case: 19-2450 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 04/07/2020
2 MOORE v. WILKIE

Before MOORE, CLEVENGER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Dawn M. Moore appeals a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) decision affirming the Board of Veterans Appeals’ denial of 

entitlement to an effective date before November 12, 2013

for the award of service-connected disability benefits for 

Ms. Moore’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Moore 

v. Wilkie, No. 18-1005, 2019 WL 1511214 (Vet. App. April 

8, 2019). Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Moore served on active duty from March 1996 to 

July 2007. In August 2007, Ms. Moore submitted a claim 

for benefits for several disabilities. She was granted benefits for those claims from July 28, 2007, the day after her

discharge from service. One such claim was for migraine 

headaches for which she was granted a 30 percent disability rating. S.A. 10–11.1 

On November 12, 2013, the regional office received Ms. 

Moore’s benefit claim for service connection for PTSD. S.A. 

18. The regional office granted service connection for 

PTSD with an effective date of November 12, 2013, the date 

of receipt of Ms. Moore’s claim. S.A. 17–18. 

Ms. Moore appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals, 

arguing that she was entitled to an earlier effective date of 

July 28, 2007 due to her in-service diagnosis of anxiety and 

depression and treatment for psychiatric symptoms prior 

to her discharge. S.A. 17. The Board denied Ms. Moore’s 

request for an earlier effective date, reasoning that the first 

claim for service connection for PTSD was received on 

1 Citations to “S.A.” refer to the Supplemental Appendix included with the government’s brief.

Case: 19-2450 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 04/07/2020
MOORE v. WILKIE 3

November 12, 2013 and that Ms. Moore had not demonstrated an intent to file a claim for service connection for 

PTSD prior to that date. S.A. 18–19. The Board found that 

the mere presence of a diagnosis and treatment for a psychiatric disorder prior to November 12, 2013 in Ms. Moore’s 

medical records did not establish entitlement to an earlier 

effective date. S.A. 19. 

Ms. Moore appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court, arguing that the Board failed to recognize her 

2007 benefit claim as an informal claim for service connection for PTSD. Specifically, Ms. Moore argued that her 

medical records, containing references to treatment for 

psychiatric symptoms in combination with her 2007 claim 

for service connection for migraine headaches, constituted 

a claim for service connection for PTSD. S.A. 2. In a singlejudge decision, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the Board did not clearly err in concluding that Ms. Moore did not intend to seek disability 

compensation for PTSD prior to November 12, 2013. S.A. 

2. Ms. Moore moved for reconsideration or for a panel decision, arguing that “the Memorandum decision overlooked 

the fact that an informal communication was the main 

bas[i]s of [her] complaint.” J.A. 4.2 The motion for reconsideration was denied, and a panel of the Veterans Court 

issued a decision adopting the single-judge decision. S.A. 

8. The Veterans Court entered judgment on September 17, 

2019. Ms. Moore appeals.

DISCUSSION

We have limited jurisdiction in reviewing decisions of 

the Veterans Court. We have jurisdiction “to review and 

decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret 

2 Citations to “J.A.” refer to the Corrected Appendix 

filed by Ms. Moore (Dkt. 21).

Case: 19-2450 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 04/07/2020
4 MOORE v. WILKIE

constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). 

Except to the extent an appeal raises a constitutional issue, 

we may not review “a challenge to a factual determination, 

or [] a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the 

facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

Here, Ms. Moore contests the Board’s assignment of 

November 12, 2013 as the earliest effective date for her 

PTSD claim. Specifically, Ms. Moore argues that the effective date should be July 28, 2007 because she allegedly 

made an informal claim for benefits in 2007 through informal communication. The government responds that Ms. 

Moore seeks review of the application of law to facts, and 

that such review is beyond our jurisdiction. We agree. The 

Board considered Ms. Moore’s alleged informal claim, but 

nonetheless found that Ms. Moore’s 2007 claims did not evidence her intent to seek benefits for PTSD at that time. 

The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision finding 

that Ms. Moore did not intend to claim benefits for PTSD 

when she filed her claims in 2007 for other disabilities. 

“[F]actual findings of when a disability was claimed or service connection established are not subject to our review.” 

Butler v. Shinseki, 603 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see

also 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c), (d)(2). Because we do not have 

jurisdiction to review the factual determinations underlying the Veterans Court’s decision, we must dismiss Ms. 

Moore’s appeal. 

CONCLUSION

We lack jurisdiction over the Veterans Court’s factual 

findings that Ms. Moore challenges in her appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 19-2450 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 04/07/2020