NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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., Secret ary 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, fo r 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 Couns el, 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 Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Judge Robert N. DavisNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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., Secret ary 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 su rviving 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 Sept ember 1981 to June 1982. Because Ms. Talbot’s appeal is fact-based an d 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 Novem ber 1967, the Depart ment of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded Ms. Talbot non-service connected death pension benefits as the surviving spouse of a veteran. Subseq uently, in December 1981, Ms. Talbot lost her surviving spouse status after a VA regional office (R O) determined that she had been living with another man as his common law wife as of Ma rch 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 pens ion benefits on the basis that her son, George Sullivan, would be attending an approved educ ational 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 Oc tober 1, 1978, the e ffective 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 disabilit y for ten years prior to a non-service connected death. However, t he 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 receiv e 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 2Board affirmed the RO’s denial, concluding that her son was t he proper claimant for the benefits in question. Ms. Talbot appealed t he denial to the Veterans Court, which remanded the claim in October 2004 for the Boar d to consider Ms. Talbot’s submission of VA Form 21-674c in Septem ber 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 compens ation benefits as the surv iving spouse of the veteran for the period from September 1981 to June 1982.” The Board recognized that in, September 1981, Ms. Tal bot had applied for additional benef its 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 in creased VA benefits for that period of time because she was not entitled to receive any herself. On July 2, 2007, the Veterans Court affi rmed the Board’s decisio n. The Veterans Court entered judgment on July 25, 2007. Ms. Talbot subm itted 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 interpretati on 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 considerin g challenges to the determination of facts in a parti cular case and the application of legal standards to those facts. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

2007-7307 32007-7307 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 inva lid. And although Ms. Talbot references the circumstances su rrounding her case as other bases for challenging the Veterans C ourt’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 elig ibility for VA benefits—which we emphasize that we do not— we generally do not consi der 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 ra ised below in appeals of Veterans Court decisions). For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Ms. Ta lbot’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

1 On appeal, Ms. Talbot asserts, am ong other allegations, that she was discriminated against, that the VA had treat ed her in a “deceitful and underhanded” manner, that her counsel below di d not correctly or fairly r epresent her, that her record is missing several documents, and that her s on’s “helpless child” benefits are past due.