NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

VERA O’CONNOR, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2010-7086 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case no. 08-2168, Judge Lawrence B. 

Hagel. 

__________________________ 

Decided: October 12, 2010 

__________________________ 

VERA O’CONNOR, of Shreveport, Louisiana, pro se. 

SHARI A. ROSE, 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 

F. HOCKEY, JR., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the 
O'CONNOR v. DVA 2

brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy Assistant General 

Counsel, JONATHAN E. TAYLOR, Attorney, United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

__________________________ 

Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Vera N. O’Connor appeals the judgment of the Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims that denied her claim for 

an earlier effective date for service connection for her 

husband’s lung cancer. O’Connor v. Shinseki, No. 08-2168 

(Ct. Vet. App. March 23, 2010). We dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

Our authority to review a decision of the Veterans 

Court is limited. We may review such a decision only to 

the extent that it pertains to the validity of “a rule of law 

or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation 

thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter),” or “to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a 

decision.” 38 U.S.C. §§ 7292(a), 7292(c). Absent the 

presentation of a constitutional issue, we do not otherwise 

have jurisdiction to review either “a challenge to a factual 

determination” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as 

applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 

7292(d)(2). 

The Veterans Court found that, regardless of when 

the disability—here lung cancer—arose, under 38 C.F.R. § 

3.816(c)(2) the effective date for disability benefits could 

not be prior to the date the claim was made. O’Connor’s 

appeal amounts to a challenge of the Veterans Court’s 

application of the timing provisions of this regulation to 

the facts in this case. We lack jurisdiction to consider this 
3 O'CONNOR v. DVA

challenge. See Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1362-63 

(Fed. Cir. 2002). 

Additionally, the Veterans Court did not decide any 

constitutional issues, and O’Connor’s allegations of Fifth 

Amendment rights violations are generalized grievances 

of unfair treatment. These assertions do not raise legitimate constitutional issues; and, as such, they do not 

necessitate our review of the facts or application of law or 

regulation to fact. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); see also Helfer 

v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[The] 

characterization of that question as constitutional in 

nature does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.”). 

Thus, O’Connor’s appeal does not challenge the validity of any statute or regulation, nor does her appeal raise 

any genuine constitutional issue that could form the basis 

for our jurisdiction.