NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

WILLIAM R. SMITH, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2011-7138 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in Case No. 09-3249, Judge Lawrence B. 

Hagel. 

___________________________ 

Decided: November 15, 2011 

___________________________ 

WILLIAM R. SMITH, of Chicago, Illinois, pro se. 

DAWN E. GOODMAN, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

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

With him on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and TODD M.
SMITH v. DVA 2

HUGHES, Deputy Director. Of counsel on the brief were 

DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, 

United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

__________________________ 

Before BRYSON, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

William R. Smith appeals from a decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the 

Veterans Court”). The court affirmed a decision of the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals finding that Mr. Smith had 

not submitted new and material evidence sufficient to 

reopen his previously denied claim for benefits. Because 

the issue in this case is beyond our jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Smith served on active duty in the U.S. Army 

from June 1972 to August 1978. In 2002, Mr. Smith filed 

a claim for benefits for diabetes mellitus. He contended 

that his diabetes was caused by pancreatic surgery that 

he underwent during his service. In 2003, a regional 

office of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs 

denied Mr. Smith’s claim because it found no evidence of 

a medical nexus between his pancreatic surgery and his 

diabetes. 

In 2004, Mr. Smith submitted a request to reopen his 

previously denied claim for benefits. In support of that 

request, Mr. Smith submitted two private medical opinions. Finding the medical opinions inconclusive and 
3 SMITH v. DVA

insufficient to establish a medical nexus between Mr. 

Smith’s pancreatic surgery and his diabetes, the regional 

office denied Mr. Smith’s request to reopen his previously 

denied claims. Mr. Smith appealed the denial to the 

Board. The Board upheld the denial of Mr. Smith’s 

request to reopen his claim, and the Veterans Court 

affirmed the Board’s decision. 

On October 22, 2009, while the Board’s decision was 

on appeal to the Veterans Court, Mr. Smith filed a new 

request with the regional office to reopen his claim. In 

support of that new request, he submitted new medical 

evidence. In response to that request, the regional office 

granted service connection for Mr. Smith’s diabetes with 

an effective date of October 22, 2008. To the extent that 

Mr. Smith is arguing in this appeal for an earlier effective 

date of the service connection that resulted from his 2009 

request to reopen his claim, that issue was not addressed 

by the Veterans Court and we therefore have no jurisdiction to address it. 

DISCUSSION

The scope of our jurisdiction to review decisions of the 

Veterans Court is limited by statute. This court’s jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court is limited to 

deciding the validity or interpretation of statutes, regulations, or constitutional provisions, and reviewing decisions of that court on “a rule of law or . . . any statute or 

regulation . . . that was relied on by [the Veterans Court] 

in making the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (c). Except 

in cases presenting constitutional issues, this court lacks 

jurisdiction to review “a challenge to a factual determination” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to 

the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2). 
SMITH v. DVA 4

In this case, the Veterans Court and the Board applied the applicable regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a), to 

the facts of the case. The medical opinions submitted by 

Mr. Smith in 2004 stated that his diabetes mellitus may 

have been caused by his in-service pancreatic surgery. 

The Board found that that those opinions were not material because they were too speculative to give rise to a 

reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. The 

Veterans Court held that the Board’s decision was not 

clearly erroneous and therefore affirmed that decision. 

The question whether the medical opinions Mr. Smith 

submitted in support of his 2004 request were unduly 

speculative is not a legal issue over which this court has 

jurisdiction in an appeal from the Veterans Court. Because we lack statutory authority to review the decision of 

the Veterans Court, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

No costs. 

DISMISSED