NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KEVIN D. SMITH,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7009

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-1832, Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley.

______________________ 

Decided: March 4, 2015

______________________ 

KEVIN D. SMITH, Baton Rouge, LA, pro se.

MICHAEL ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC for respondent-appellee. Also 

represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN,

JR., MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.; MARTIN JAMES SENDEK,

DAVID J. BARRANS, Office of General Counsel, United 

States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ 
2 SMITH v. MCDONALD

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Kevin D. Smith (“Smith”) appeals from the decision of 

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of 

mandamus. See Smith v. McDonald, No. 14-1832, 2014 

WL 3909109 (Vet. App. Aug. 12, 2014) (“Order”). Because 

Smith’s arguments challenge only factual findings and an 

application of law to fact, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Smith served on active duty in the Marines from June 

1978 to August 1978. During his service entrance examination, an examiner determined that Smith had a congenital disability resulting in his left leg being shorter than 

his right leg. Smith was allowed to enter basic training, 

but after complaining of pain in his left ankle, hip, and 

knee, Smith was discharged.

On May 2, 2006, Smith filed a claim for compensation 

with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Regional 

Office (“RO”) in New Orleans, Louisiana, seeking entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability, a left 

knee disability, and tendonitis of the left ankle. Smith’s 

claims were denied by the RO, and Smith timely filed a 

Notice of Disagreement. Smith later amended his original claim to include entitlement to service connection for 

back and right hip disabilities. 

Smith perfected his appeal as to his left hip, left knee, 

and left ankle claims, but in October 2010 the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denied Smith’s claims for 

service connection. The Board’s decision did not address 

Smith’s back and right hip disabilities.
SMITH v. MCDONALD 3

Smith appealed to the Veterans Court, which granted 

a Joint Motion for Remand that vacated the Board’s 

decision and remanded the claims to the Board for further 

proceedings. The Board ordered the RO to arrange for an 

examination to determine if Smith’s military service 

aggravated his congenital leg disability. Following the 

examination, the RO issued a rating decision awarding 

Smith a service connection for peroneal tendonitis of the 

left ankle at a 20 percent rating, effective from May 2, 

2006. The RO continued to deny Smith’s claims for service connection for his left hip and knee disabilities, and 

also subsequently denied service connection for Smith’s 

back and right hip disabilities. 

In April 2013, Smith appealed to the Board and then 

petitioned the Veterans Court for a writ of mandamus, 

requesting that the VA be directed to hasten the adjudication of his claims. The Veterans Court denied the petition, and on appeal we dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction. 

Smith v. Shinseki, 549 F. App’x 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

In April 2014, the Board denied an earlier effective 

date for the service connection and remanded to the RO 

for further examination with respect to the left hip and 

left knee disabilities. The Board ordered the RO to issue 

a Statement of the Case with respect to Smith’s right hip 

and lower back disabilities. Smith appealed from the 

Board decision with respect to the earlier effective date, 

and the Veterans Court affirmed. See Smith v. McDonald, No. 14-1400, 2015 WL 402632 (Vet. App. Jan. 30, 

2015). 

On June 9, 2014, Smith filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus. Smith 

asserted that a writ of mandamus was necessary to 

compel the RO to adjudicate the claim for service connection for the left leg disability filed in August 2006. Smith 

alleged that the RO had deliberately delayed reaching a 
4 SMITH v. MCDONALD

conclusion as to his left leg disability, and that the failure 

to adjudicate was motivated by discrimination.

The Veterans Court denied Smith’s request for relief. 

Order, at *3. With respect to his claim for an earlier 

effective date, the court found that Smith possessed 

“adequate alternative means to obtain his desired relief 

through the appeal process.” Id. at *2. The Veterans 

Court noted that Smith’s appeal of the April 2014 Board 

decision was pending, id., although we note that the 

Board decision has since been affirmed, Smith, 2015 WL 

402632, at *2. With respect to Smith’s other claims, the 

Veterans Court found that the VA had not delayed the 

processing of the claims to an extent that would amount 

to an arbitrary refusal to act. Order, at *2–3. 

Smith filed a motion for panel review, which the Veterans Court granted. The panel, however, affirmed the 

single-judge decision on the ground that Smith failed to 

show that the Veterans Court overlooked or misunderstood any point of fact or law with respect to its rejection 

of Smith’s arguments.

Smith then appealed to this court seeking to invoke 

our jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292.

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review in an appeal from a Veterans 

Court decision is limited. We may review a Veterans 

Court decision with respect to the validity of a decision on 

a rule of law or the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation that was relied upon by the Veterans 

Court in making the decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). We 

may also review a Veterans Court decision with respect to 

legal questions raised in an appeal that challenge the 

Veterans Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus. Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 

2002). Except with respect to constitutional issues, we 

“may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determina-
SMITH v. MCDONALD 5

tion, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to 

the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

Smith argues that the Veterans Court erred in finding

that the RO was not unreasonably delaying the processing of his claims. However, that argument challenges 

only the Veterans Court’s fact-finding and application of 

law to the facts of Smith’s case, which are matters outside 

of our jurisdiction. See id.; see also Conway v. Principi, 

353 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[W]hile we can 

review questions of law, we cannot review applications of 

law to fact.”). Here, the Veterans Court decision did not 

involve any questions regarding the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation. Rather, the Veterans 

Court merely applied established law to the facts of 

Smith’s case. See Order, at *1–3. Moreover, nowhere 

does Smith allege that the Veterans Court erroneously 

applied the mandamus doctrine.

Smith further alleges undetermined constitutional violations in his informal brief. However, the Veterans 

Court did not address any constitutional issues in its 

decision. Without an explanation providing an adequate 

basis for Smith’s claims, they are constitutional claims in 

name only and thus outside of our jurisdiction. Helfer v.

West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Characterization of an appeal as “constitutional in nature does not 

confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.”).

We have considered the additional arguments presented in Smith’s informal appeal brief but do not find 

them persuasive. Smith raises neither a substantial 

constitutional issue nor other legal question. For the 

foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.