NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RICARDO V. COMFORT,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-2376

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-2064, Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

______________________ 

Decided: November 8, 2016

______________________ 

RICARDO V. COMFORT, Virginia Beach, VA, pro se.

SEAN SIEKKINEN, 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., SCOTT D.

AUSTIN; Y. KEN LEE, MEGHAN ALPHONSO, Office of General 

Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Washington, DC.

______________________ 
2 COMFORT v. MCDONALD

Before O’MALLEY, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Ricardo Comfort seeks review of the May 10, 2016 decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the 

“Veterans Court”) affirming the March 18, 2015 decision 

of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the “Board”). Comfort 

v. McDonald, No. 15-2064, 2016 WL 2640986 (Vet. App. 

May 10, 2016). For the reasons below, we dismiss Mr. 

Comfort’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Comfort served on active duty in the Army from 

October 1972 to October 1974. In February 2001, Mr. 

Comfort filed a claim of entitlement to service connection 

for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and depression, which the Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”)

denied in April 2002. Mr. Comfort appealed to the Board, 

which in March 2004 affirmed with respect to the PTSD

claim, but remanded with respect to the depression claim. 

Mr. Comfort did not appeal the Board’s decision on the 

PTSD claim to the Veterans Court, and on July 26, 2004, 

that decision became final. 

On December 6, 2004, the VA sent Mr. Comfort letters 

requesting information about his remanded depression 

claim. Mr. Comfort replied with three copies of a “Statement in Support of Claim” form (the “Form”), providing

additional information regarding his claim for PTSD, 

depression, and other physical injuries he claimed were 

service connected: torn ligaments, a failed surgery on his 

right ear drum, high blood pressure, acid reflux, arthritis 

in his neck, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. The Form did 

not contain any request for judicial review of the Board’s 

decision. 

On January 4, 2005, construing the Form to be a request to reopen his claim for PTSD benefits, the VA 
COMFORT v. MCDONALD 3

denied service connection, but determined that the evidence proved that Mr. Comfort did suffer from PTSD. Mr. 

Comfort appealed the VA’s decision to the Board, which 

remanded to the VA for further consideration in light of 

new evidence Mr. Comfort had provided on appeal. On 

March 29, 2013, the VA granted PTSD service connection 

with an effective date of January 4, 2005. 

Mr. Comfort appealed to the Board, arguing that the 

Form should have been construed as a notice of appeal, 

rather than a request to reopen. Because the Form was a 

notice of appeal, Mr. Comfort argued, the proper effective 

date is the date of his original filing: February 2001. 

Although he filed the Form outside the 120-day window to 

appeal, Mr. Comfort claimed that equitable tolling applied; mental illness had prevented him from filing the

appeal in a timely manner. The Board disagreed, affirming the VA’s decision. Mr. Comfort appealed the Board’s 

decision, and the Veterans Court affirmed. The Veterans 

Court noted in particular that the documents Mr. Comfort 

filed in response to the December 2004 VA letter did not 

mention judicial review, instead referring only to an 

internal VA review program. Regarding equitable tolling, 

the Veterans Court determined that Mr. Comfort failed to 

demonstrate that his condition prevented him from filing 

a notice of appeal. Mr. Comfort now appeals to this 

Court. 

DISCUSSION

Our ability to review a decision of the Veterans Court 

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 [Veterans] Court in making the decision.” 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(a). We have exclusive jurisdiction “to 

review and decide any challenge to the validity of any 

statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof 
4 COMFORT v. MCDONALD

brought under [38 U.S.C. § 7292], and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented 

and necessary to a decision.” Id. § 7292(c). Except to the 

extent an appeal presents a constitutional issue, we “may 

not review (A) a challenge to 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).

We agree with the government that we do not have 

jurisdiction over this appeal under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

Interpretation of the contents of a claim for benefits is a 

factual matter over which this Court does not have jurisdiction. Ellington v. Peake, 541 F.3d 1364, 1371–72 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008). The Veterans Court interpreted the Form as a

request to reopen a claim for benefits. Mr. Comfort now

asks us to review that interpretation, which is beyond our 

purview. See Moody v. Principi, 360 F.3d 1306, 1310

(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The interpretation of these prior filings 

is essentially a factual inquiry, and it is beyond our 

jurisdiction to make that determination.”). 

Even if we had jurisdiction to review the Veterans 

Court’s interpretation of Mr. Comfort’s Form, we plainly 

do not have jurisdiction over the Veterans Court’s evaluation of his equitable tolling argument. See Leonard v. 

Gober, 223 F.3d 1374, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Mr. 

Comfort essentially argues that the Veterans Court 

misapplied the doctrine, as it should have found the fact 

that Mr. Comfort did not receive notice of denial sufficient

justification for equitable tolling. He also contends that 

equitable tolling should apply because of his mental 

health issues. These arguments, however, challenge the 

Veterans Court’s application of law to facts, an application this Court cannot review. Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 

F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“This court is precluded 

from reviewing factual determinations bearing on a 

veteran’s equitable tolling claim.”); Leonard, 223 F.3d at 

1375–76. 
COMFORT v. MCDONALD 5

Because Mr. Comfort exclusively appeals matters over

which this Court lacks jurisdiction, we must dismiss Mr. 

Comfort’s appeal.

DISMISSED