NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

DANIEL R. RELEFORD, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2010-7078 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case no. 08-3375, Judge Bruce E. 

Kasold. 

___________________________ 

Decided: December 17, 2010 

___________________________ 

DARLA J. LILLEY, Lilley Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Daingerfield, Texas, for claimant-appellant. 

TARA K. HOGAN, 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 BRIAN 
RELEFORD v. DVA 2

M. SIMKIN, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief 

were MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant General 

Counsel, and DANA RAFFAELLI, Attorney, United States 

Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

__________________________ 

Before RADER, Chief Judge, and LOURIE, Circuit Judge, 

and WHYTE, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. 

Daniel R. Releford (“Releford”) appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming-in-part and vacatingin-part the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

(“Board”) denying a disability rating higher than 50 

percent prior to December 31, 2007, for his serviceconnected post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). 

Releford v. Shinseki, No. 08-3375, 2010 U.S. App. Vet. 

Claims LEXIS 574 (Vet. App. Apr. 5, 2010). Because 

Releford’s appeal does not present any issues within this 

court’s jurisdiction, this court dismisses. 

I 

Releford served on active duty from December 1965 to 

December 1968. In May 1995, he filed a claim for service 

connection for PTSD. In November 1995, a Department 

of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) regional office (“RO”) denied 

service connection. The RO decision later became final. 

On July 8, 2004, Releford filed a claim to reopen. In 

August 2005, the RO granted service connection for PTSD 

with a 30 percent disability rating effective July 8, 2004. 

The RO later increased his disability rating to 50 percent. 

 * Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, 

United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California, sitting by designation. 
3 RELEFORD v. DVA

In March 2007, the Board ordered the VA to give Releford 

various examinations including a psychiatric examination 

to evaluate his PTSD claim. Releford underwent a psychiatric examination on December 31, 2007. On October 

1, 2008, the Board found that the medical evidence of 

record did not support an initial rating higher than 50 

percent but did support a rating of 70 percent as of the 

December 2007 examination. 

On April 5, 2010, the Veterans Court affirmed-in-part 

and vacated-in-part the Board’s decision. The Veterans 

Court affirmed the Board’s decision to deny a scheduler 

disability rating greater than 50 percent for PTSD prior to 

December 31, 2007. The Veterans Court found that the 

Board properly examined the medical evidence of record, 

including medical reports from 2003 to 2007, and noted 

that the December 2007 medical report demonstrated for 

the first time that Releford was unable to establish and 

maintain occupational relationships. However, the Veterans Court found that the Board failed to discuss 

whether the evidence supported an extra-schedular 

disability rating for PTSD or otherwise explain why such 

a rating was not needed. The Veterans Court vacated a 

part of the Board’s decision that denied by omission an 

extra-schedular rating for PTSD prior to December 31, 

2007. 

II 

This court’s jurisdiction to review the Veterans 

Court’s decisions is limited. This court has “exclusive 

jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to the 

validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation 

thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory 

provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a 

decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c) (2006). Absent a constitutional issue, this court “may not review (A) a challenge to 
RELEFORD v. DVA 4

a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or 

regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id.

§ 7292(d)(2). 

Releford argues that the Veterans Court misinterpreted 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 by ignoring that the application 

of the rating schedule demands “accurate and fully descriptive medical examination reports, with specific 

emphasis upon the limitation of activity imposed by the 

disabling mental condition.” (Appellant Br. At 7.) Specifically, he alleges that the Veterans Court misinterpreted § 4.130 as allowing examinations that do not fully 

discuss psychiatric symptoms and their effects on social 

and occupational impairment. 

Although Releford attempts to characterize his claim 

as involving interpretation of § 4.130, he actually claims 

that the medical examinations of record did not fully 

describe the level of his social and occupational impairment. Releford’s argument regarding the inadequacy of 

the medical evidence involves factual matters outside this 

court’s jurisdiction. See Belcher v. West, 214 F.3d 1335, 

1338 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Veterans Court did not interpret § 4.130. Releford merely challenges the Veterans 

Court’s application of the established law to the facts of 

his case. 

Accordingly, Releford’s appeal does not present a constitutional issue or a genuine issue concerning the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation pertinent to 

the Veterans Court’s decision. This court thus will not 

reach the government’s alternate argument that this 

court lacks jurisdiction on the ground that the review of 

the appealed claim would “disrupt the orderly process of 

adjudication” as it is “inextricably intertwined” with the 

remanded claim. Elkins v. Gober, 229 F.3d 1369, 1374-76 

(Fed. Cir. 2000). 
5 RELEFORD v. DVA

III 

Because this court does not have jurisdiction to review 

the issue on appeal, it dismisses Releford’s appeal. 

DISMISSED 

COSTS

No costs.