NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

MICHAEL L. FOX, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2010-7071 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case No. 07-3797, Judge Alan G. 

Lance, Sr. 

___________________________ 

Decided: October 7, 2010 

___________________________ 

MICHAEL L. FOX, of Wayland, Missouri, pro se. 

KAREN V. GOFF, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. 

With her on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and MARTIN 
FOX v. DVA 2

F. HOCKEY, JR., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the 

brief was DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy Assistant General 

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

__________________________ 

Before DYK, MAYER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam. 

Michael L. Fox appeals from a decision of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), 

Fox v. Shinseki, No. 07-3797 (Vet. App. Feb. 16, 2010), 

affirming a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

(Board) denying Mr. Fox’s claim for entitlement to service 

connection for urticaria. For the reasons discussed below, 

we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

Mr. Fox served in the Iowa National Guard from 1985 

to 1997. He served on active duty from January 1986 to 

April 1986 and from January 1991 to June 1991, and he 

had active duty training during August 1992. Mr. Fox’s 

service and private medical records reflect multiple 

treatments for urticaria, an allergic skin disorder. However, the records contain conflicting information as to 

when Mr. Fox’s urticaria first occurred. 

In December 1996, Mr. Fox filed an Application for 

Compensation or Pension for, among other things, chronic 

urticaria. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

Regional Office (RO) issued a rating decision in October 

1997 denying service connection for Mr. Fox’s urticaria. 

Mr. Fox underwent multiple VA medical examinations 

following this decision; the RO issued multiple Statements of the Case and Supplemental Statements of the 

Case, each denying service connection for Mr. Fox’s urticaria. Mr. Fox appealed to the Board, and in December 
3 FOX v. DVA

2004 the Board remanded his claim to the RO for additional development. 

The RO issued a new Supplemental Statement of the 

Case in November 2006, again denying service connection 

for urticaria. Mr. Fox appealed to the Board. The Board 

found that the record contained no evidence showing that 

Mr. Fox’s urticaria began during, was causally related to, 

or was aggravated by, his active service. Accordingly, the 

Board denied Mr. Fox’s claim of service connection for 

urticaria. 

Mr. Fox appealed to the Veterans Court, arguing that 

VA failed to obtain records from his service in the National Guard from 1986 to 1992. Mr. Fox also argued that 

the Board failed to consider all of his medical records, 

improperly weighed the evidence of record, and improperly provided its own medical opinion. The Veterans 

Court observed that the record contained medical records 

from the 1986 to 1992 time period and that Mr. Fox did 

not specify what documents, if any, were missing. Therefore, the Veterans Court held that VA satisfied its duty to 

assist in obtaining Mr. Fox’s records. The Veterans Court 

noted that Mr. Fox did not point to any relevant evidence 

that the Board failed to consider and, citing Gonzales v. 

West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2000), observed that 

the Board is presumed to have reviewed all evidence of 

record absent specific evidence to the contrary. Thus, the 

Veterans Court found no error in the Board’s review of 

the evidence of record. Finally, the Veterans Court observed that Mr. Fox had not identified any medical opinion proffered by the Board and held that Mr. Fox failed to 

present any argument for the court to entertain on that 

point. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision. 
FOX v. DVA 4

Mr. Fox appeals the Veterans Court’s judgment. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c), our jurisdiction over Veterans 

Court decisions is limited. We may review “the validity of 

a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of 

any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof 

(other than a determination as to a factual matter) that 

was relied on by the Court in making the decision.” Id.

§ 7292(a). However, absent a constitutional issue, we 

cannot review factual determinations or “challenge[s] to a 

law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular 

case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2). 

On appeal, Mr. Fox asserts that the Veterans Court 

erred by offering a medical opinion. However, Mr. Fox 

fails to identify any such medical opinion. To the extent 

Mr. Fox appeals the Veterans Court’s determination that 

he failed to adequately present this argument below, this 

is a challenge to the Veterans Court’s application of law to 

fact that we lack jurisdiction to review. See 38 U.S.C. § 

7292(d)(2). Mr. Fox also asserts that the Veterans Court 

failed to consider a 2003 letter from his doctor that allegedly shows that his urticaria began in 1987, and he asks 

this court to take into consideration the timing of his 

urticaria outbreaks and the medication he was taking. 

Mr. Fox does not challenge any rule of law applied by the 

Veterans Court, nor does he raise any issue concerning 

the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation 

implicated by the Veterans Court’s decision. Because Mr. 

Fox fails to allege any legal error in this case and we lack 

jurisdiction to review Mr. Fox’s factual challenges, we 

must dismiss Mr. Fox’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED 
5 FOX v. DVA

COSTS

No costs.