Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07059/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07059-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David G. Brescia
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DAVID G. BRESCIA,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7059

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-2780, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

______________________ 

Decided: February 10, 2016 

______________________ 

MAXWELL DOUGLAS KINMAN, Alexander, Webb, and 

Kinman, Mason, OH, argued for claimant-appellant. 

NATHANAEL YALE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also 

represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., SCOTT D. AUSTIN; Y. KEN LEE, AMANDA R.

BLACKMON, DAVID J. BARRANS, Office of General Counsel, 

Case: 15-7059 Document: 38-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/10/2016
2 BRESCIA v. MCDONALD

United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

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 

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.

Case: 15-7059 Document: 38-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/10/2016