Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-20-01457/USCOURTS-ca13-20-01457-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maria E. Garza
Appellant
Robert Wilkie
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MARIA E. GARZA,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2020-1457

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 18-6396, Judge William S. Greenberg.

______________________

Decided: June 2, 2020

______________________

MARIA E. GARZA, Hebbronville, TX, pro se. 

 BRYAN MICHAEL BYRD, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

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

JOSEPH H. HUNT, CLAUDIA BURKE, ROBERT EDWARD 

KIRSCHMAN, JR.; JONATHAN KRISCH, Y. KEN LEE, Office of 

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC. 

Case: 20-1457 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 06/02/2020
2 GARZA v. WILKIE

 ______________________

Before REYNA, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Maria E. Garza appeals from the final decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denying

the disability claim of her late husband, veteran Armando 

A. Garza. Specifically, Ms. Garza challenges the Board’s 

determinations denying (1) entitlement to a disability rating greater than 90% for accrued-benefits purposes, and

(2) an effective date earlier than April 5, 2006, for a total 

disability rating based on individual unemployability. 

Garza v. Wilkie, No. 18-6396, 2019 WL 6315189, at *1 

(Vet. App. Nov. 26, 2019). Because Ms. Garza fails to present a question within our jurisdiction, we dismiss.

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans

Court is limited by statute. James v. Wilkie, 917 F.3d 1368, 

1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Goodman v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d 

1383, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). We may review a Veterans

Court decision “on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof . . . that was relied on 

by the [Veterans] Court in making the decision.” 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(a). Unless a constitutional issue is presented, we 

have no jurisdiction to review questions of fact or the application of a law or regulation to a particular set of facts.

Id. § 7292(d)(2).

On appeal, Ms. Garza argues that the Veterans Court 

misinterpreted 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400(b)(2) and 3.307(a), 

which govern the effective date of disability compensation 

and the presumptive service connection for disease, respectively. Pointing to Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331

(Fed. Cir. 2013), a case where this court interpreted 

38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), which governs the principles relating 

to service connection, Ms. Garza reasons that this case also 

involves the interpretation of a regulation because 

Case: 20-1457 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 06/02/2020
GARZA v. WILKIE 3

§ 3.303(b) is inextricably intertwined with §§ 3.400(b)(2)

and 3.307(a). Particularly, Ms. Garza argues that the relationship between these regulations may “afford an alternative route to service connection for specific chronic 

diseases.” Appellant’s Br. 2 (quoting Walker, 708 F.3d 

at 1340).1 In this case, however, finding a service connection to a chronic disease is not at issue. Rather, the issue 

in this case involves the effective date and the disability 

rating of an already established service-connected chronic 

disease, which the Veterans Court determined by applying 

the relevant law to the facts. Unlike in Walker, where we 

found it necessary to interpret the meaning of the term 

“chronic disease” in § 3.303(b) to determine if the veteran’s 

hearing loss was connected to his service, 708 F.3d at 1334–

35, here Mr. Garza’s chronic disease had already been 

granted service connection. Accordingly, no such statutory 

or regulatory interpretation is necessary. 

Ms. Garza also argues that the Veterans Court violated 

her constitutional rights by denying her an earlier effective 

date and a higher disability rating. She reasons that this 

denial was a “trap” because she was “unaware of the various forms of compensation available.” Appellant’s Br. 3

(quoting Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 

2009)). Though Ms. Garza couches her argument as a constitutional claim, she actually challenges the Veterans 

Court’s application of the law to the facts in its determinations of the effective date of the disability compensation

and the disability rating. Because we may not review a 

challenge to a factual determination or a challenge to the 

application of law to facts, see 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), we 

dismiss Ms. Garza’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

1 When referencing Ms. Garza’s informal brief, the 

page numbers correspond to the page numbers stamped at 

the top of each page by this court’s document filing system.

Case: 20-1457 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 06/02/2020
4 GARZA v. WILKIE

We have considered Ms. Garza’s other arguments and

find that they also fail to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of this court. Accordingly, we dismiss Ms. Garza’s

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 20-1457 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 06/02/2020