NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-7307 

NANCY G. TALBOT, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

 Nancy G. Talbot, of Trego, Montana, pro se. 

 Phyllis Jo Baunach, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With 

her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, 

Director, and Deborah A. Bynum, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were 

David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Christopher P. Mcnamee, 

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

 

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

Judge Robert N. Davis 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-7307 

NANCY G. TALBOT, 

 Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 05-1870, Judge 

Robert N. Davis. 

____________________________ 

DECIDED: January 9, 2008 

____________________________ 

Before RADER, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Claimant-appellant, Nancy G. Talbot, the surviving spouse of the late veteran, 

Patrick J. Sullivan, appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(Veterans Court) in Nancy G. Talbot v. R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs, No. 05-1870 (Vet. App. Jul. 2, 2007), which affirmed the decision of the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denying Ms. Talbot the award of additional dependency 

benefits for her son during the period September 1981 to June 1982. Because Ms. 

Talbot’s appeal is fact-based and beyond our scope of review, we dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction. 
BACKGROUND 

Mr. Sullivan, the late veteran, served in the U.S. Army during World War II. 

Following his death in November 1967, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

awarded Ms. Talbot non-service connected death pension benefits as the surviving 

spouse of a veteran. Subsequently, in December 1981, Ms. Talbot lost her surviving 

spouse status after a VA regional office (RO) determined that she had been living with 

another man as his common law wife as of March 1981. Accordingly, Ms. Talbot’s 

death pension benefits were retroactively terminated, effective March 1981. 

On September 11, 1981, Ms. Talbot submitted VA Form 21-674c, requesting 

increased payments of death pension benefits on the basis that her son, George 

Sullivan, would be attending an approved educational institution starting September 

1981 until June 1982. The Board determined that, because she was not qualified to 

receive VA death pension benefits during the period in question, she was not entitled to 

seek additional benefits either. 

In January 1999, the VA awarded Ms. Talbot dependency and indemnity 

compensation benefits (DIC) retroactive to October 1, 1978, the effective date of 38 

U.S.C. § 1318, which permits payment of DIC in cases where a veteran is rated totally 

disabled due to service connected disability for ten years prior to a non-service 

connected death. However, the retroactive award of DIC benefits did not cover the 

period from March 1981 through December 1984, during which Ms. Talbot had been 

deemed remarried and ineligible to receive VA benefits as a surviving spouse. 

In 2002, Ms. Talbot once again requested and was denied increased payment of 

VA benefits by the RO for the period of time that her son was completing his GED. The 

2007-7307 2
Board affirmed the RO’s denial, concluding that her son was the proper claimant for the 

benefits in question. Ms. Talbot appealed the denial to the Veterans Court, which 

remanded the claim in October 2004 for the Board to consider Ms. Talbot’s submission 

of VA Form 21-674c in September 1981. In June 2005, the Board denied Ms. Talbot’s 

claim for additional benefits, stating that Ms. Talbot was “not entitled to death pension 

and dependency indemnity compensation benefits as the surviving spouse of the 

veteran for the period from September 1981 to June 1982.” The Board recognized that 

in, September 1981, Ms. Talbot had applied for additional benefits on the basis of her 

son’s continued schooling, but that the death pension benefits she had been receiving 

at that time had been retroactively terminated in December 1981, effective March 1981. 

Therefore, Ms. Talbot could not claim increased VA benefits for that period of time 

because she was not entitled to receive any herself. 

On July 2, 2007, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision. The Veterans 

Court entered judgment on July 25, 2007. Ms. Talbot submitted a timely notice of 

appeal on August 27, 2007. 

DISCUSSION 

Congress has granted us limited jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Pursuant to § 7292(a), we may consider appeals challenging 

the validity of any statute or regulation, or any interpretation thereof that was relied on 

by the Veterans Court in making the decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Unless a genuine 

constitutional issue is presented, we are barred from considering challenges to the 

determination of facts in a particular case and the application of legal standards to those 

facts. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

2007-7307 3
2007-7307 4

Ms. Talbot’s appeal is fact-based in nature and, hence, falls outside of our 

authority to review. She does not argue that the Veterans Court misinterpreted any 

statute or regulation or that any relevant VA regulations are invalid. And although Ms. 

Talbot references the circumstances surrounding her case as other bases for 

challenging the Veterans Court’s decision, we are precluded from considering such 

facts.1 

Lastly, we note but decline to speculate on the merits of Ms. Talbot’s argument 

that her case is not about her own claims, but about her son’s claims for VA benefits. 

Whether or not her son is a proper claimant of VA benefits in his own right, Ms. Talbot’s 

case was presented to the Veterans Court as seeking increased payments of VA 

benefits to her as a veteran’s surviving spouse. Even if we had the authority to review 

the facts of her son’s eligibility for VA benefits—which we emphasize that we do not—

we generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See

Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc) (holding that this 

court generally does not decide issues not raised below in appeals of Veterans Court 

decisions). 

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Ms. Talbot’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

 1

 On appeal, Ms. Talbot asserts, among other allegations, that she was 

discriminated against, that the VA had treated her in a “deceitful and underhanded” 

manner, that her counsel below did not correctly or fairly represent her, that her record 

is missing several documents, and that her son’s “helpless child” benefits are past due.