Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07091/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07091-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lucy B. Gabriel
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LUCY B. GABRIEL,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7091

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-1333, Judge Lawrence B. 

Hagel.

______________________ 

Decided: October 14, 2015

______________________ 

 LUCY B. GABRIEL, Balch Springs, TX, pro se.

 ANAND R. SAMBHWANI, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.;

BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, BRYAN W. THOMPSON, Office of General 

Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Washington, DC.

Case: 15-7091 Document: 29-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/14/2015
2 GABRIEL v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Lucy Gabriel, the surviving spouse of Bobby Lee Gabriel, appeals a decision of the United States Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming 

a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) 

finding that new and material evidence had not been 

submitted to reopen a previously denied claim for benefits

based on Mr. Gabriel’s death. Because Ms. Gabriel’s 

appeal does not raise an issue of law, we dismiss for lack 

of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Gabriel was a Vietnam-era veteran who served on 

active duty in the United States Air Force from May 1961 

to October 1965. Mr. Gabriel died in 2002. His death 

certificate indicated that his death was likely caused by 

pneumonia and diffuse B-cell lymphoma. 

In January 2003, Ms. Gabriel filed a claim for dependency and indemnity compensation benefits based on 

the cause of Mr. Gabriel’s death. To support her claim, 

she provided a statement by Mr. Gabriel that his B-cell 

lymphoma was caused by his exposure to Agent Orange 

when he worked on planes that dropped Agent Orange 

over Vietnam. The Veterans Affairs regional office denied 

Ms. Gabriel’s claim. Ms. Gabriel appealed the regional 

office’s decision to the Board, and in August 2005, the 

Board denied Ms. Gabriel’s claim. The Board found that 

no evidence established that Mr. Gabriel served in Vietnam or that Mr. Gabriel was exposed to Agent Orange. 

Ms. Gabriel did not appeal that decision to the Veterans 

Court. 

In December 2011 and again in February 2013, Ms. 

Gabriel requested that the regional office reopen her 

Case: 15-7091 Document: 29-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/14/2015
GABRIEL v. MCDONALD 3

previously denied claim. Ms. Gabriel continued to assert

that Mr. Gabriel was exposed to Agent Orange during his 

Vietnam-era service. To support her claim, she provided 

Mr. Gabriel’s service records, two articles discussing 

Agent Orange, a letter from the New Jersey Agent Orange Commission, a November 2005 letter from the 

United States Army regarding another service member’s 

alleged exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam, and a 

personnel record indicating that Mr. Gabriel serviced F100 aircraft in Germany. In July 2012, the regional office 

declined to reopen Ms. Gabriel’s claim, finding that new 

and material evidence had not been submitted. Ms. Gabriel appealed that decision to the Board, and the Board 

affirmed. Ms. Gabriel’s appeal to the Veterans Court 

followed. 

The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s conclusion 

that new and material evidence had not been submitted. 

The court explained that Ms. Gabriel’s request to reopen 

her previously denied claim was based in part on evidence 

that was before the Board when it made its August 2005 

decision. The Veterans Court also explained that the 

additional evidence submitted by Ms. Gabriel was not 

new and material because the evidence did not indicate

that Mr. Gabriel was exposed to Agent Orange or that his 

B-cell lymphoma was related to his service. The Veterans 

Court affirmed the Board’s decision, and Ms. Gabriel’s 

appeal to this court followed. 

DISCUSSION

We have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292 to review 

decisions of the Veterans Court on issues of law but not on 

issues of fact or application of law to fact. Morris v. 

Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing 

Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 

(en banc)). “[W]hether evidence in a particular case is 

‘new and material’ is either a ‘factual determination’ 

under section 7292(d)(2)(A) or the application of law to 

Case: 15-7091 Document: 29-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/14/2015
4 GABRIEL v. MCDONALD

‘the facts of a particular case’ under section 7292(d)(2)(B) 

and is, thus, not within this court’s appellate jurisdiction.” 

Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

Ms. Gabriel argues that the Veterans Court incorrectly applied the regulation defining new and material 

evidence, 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a), but we find no indication 

that the Veterans Court made a legal determination 

concerning this regulation. See Forshey, 284 F.3d at 1349 

(“interpretation of a statute or regulation occurs when its 

meaning is elaborated by the court”). Ms. Gabriel also 

asserts that the Veterans Court decided a constitutional 

issue, but Ms. Gabriel’s constitutional argument suggests 

only that the Veterans Court failed to consider additional 

evidence of Mr. Gabriel’s service-connected death. The 

Court does not have jurisdiction over factual issues labeled as constitutional. Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 

1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“characterization of . . . [a] question 

as constitutional in nature does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack”). The Veterans Court 

decision thus raises no legal issues within our jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs. 

 

 

Case: 15-7091 Document: 29-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/14/2015