NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

DARNELL TREADWAY, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2010-7124 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case no. 08-1505, Judge William A 

Moorman. 

__________________________ 

Decided: December 9, 2010 

__________________________ 

DARNELL TREADWAY, Garland, Texas, pro se. 

DAVID D’ALESSANDRIS, 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, and JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and 
TREADWAY v. DVA 2

HAROLD D. LESTER, JR., Assistant Director. Of counsel on 

the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and MICHAEL G. DAUGHERTY, Attorney, 

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

__________________________ 

Before GAJARSA, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Darnell Treadway appeals from a decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”), which affirmed the March 28, 2008 

decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) 

denying Mr. Treadway’s claim for an increased rating for 

service connection for calluses of the feet and secondary 

service connection for disabilities of the back, knee, hip, 

ankle, and hypertension. Treadway v. Shinseki, No. 08-

1505 (Vet. App. June 30, 2010). We dismiss the appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Treadway served in the United States Army from 

October 1984 to October 1977 and from October 1989 to 

April 1992. A Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) 

regional office (“RO”) granted Mr. Treadway service 

connection for bilateral foot calluses in March 2003, but 

found his disability noncompensable. Mr. Treadway 

appealed that decision and the RO issued a deferred 

rating decision, finding that Mr. Treadway raised secondary service connection claims regarding his back, knee, 

hip, ankle, and hypertension. In August 2003, the RO 

continued the noncompensable rating for Mr. Treadway’s 

service connected foot calluses and denied all of his secondary service connection claims. In December 2004, the 
3 TREADWAY v. DVA

RO increased Mr. Treadway’s rating for service connection for bilateral foot calluses to ten percent and affirmed 

the denial of the asserted secondary service connection 

claims. In October 2005, the RO denied Mr. Treadway’s 

application for an increased rating for service connected 

foot calluses. Mr. Treadway appealed this denial and the 

denial of his secondary service connection claims to the 

Board. 

In March 2008, after considering the evidence in the 

record, the Board denied Mr. Treadway’s claim for a 

disability rating in excess of ten percent for his foot 

calluses and his claims for secondary service connection 

for disabilities of the back, knee, hip, ankle, and hypertension. Based on the application of the rating criteria to 

the facts of Mr. Treadway’s case, the Board concluded 

that the evidence did not show that Mr. Treadway was 

entitled to an increased disability rating for his foot 

calluses. The Board then evaluated Mr. Treadway’s 

claims and evidence presented for secondary service 

connection and found that the medical evidence did not 

support his claims. 

Mr. Treadway appealed the Board decision to the Veterans Court, challenging the ten percent rating for his 

foot calluses and arguing that his secondary injuries were 

all caused by these foot calluses. In June 2010, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision. The Veterans 

Court concluded that the medical evidence supported the 

Board’s denial of an increased disability rating. The 

Veterans Court also concluded that the evidence in the 

record supported the Board’s factual findings and denial 

of Mr. Treadway’s secondary service connection claims. 
TREADWAY v. DVA 4

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Treadway contends that the Veterans 

Court erred in denying his claim for a disability rating in 

excess of ten percent for his foot calluses and his secondary service connection claims for disabilities of the back, 

hip, knee, ankle, and hypertension. Specifically, Mr. 

Treadway’s argues that the Veterans Court failed to 

consider all of the evidence. Mr. Treadway asks this court 

to review his case on the merits and consider all of the 

evidence presented. 

“Our jurisdiction to review the decisions of the CAVC 

is limited by statute.” Summers v. Gober, 225 F.3d 1293, 

1295 (Fed. Cir. 2000). While this court is authorized to 

“decide all relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions,” we cannot 

adjudicate “(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,” unless a constitutional issue is 

presented. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). 

In the instant case, Mr. Treadway does not contend 

that the Veterans Court decision involved the validity or 

interpretation of a statute or regulation. Rather, Mr. 

Treadway’s arguments would require this court to review 

the evidence in the record on the merits. We are not 

authorized by Congress to review a challenge to a factual 

determination or to a law or regulation as applied to the 

facts of a particular case except to the extent that an 

appeal presents a constitutional issue. See 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(d)(2). Because Mr. Treadway does not raise a 

constitutional issue that provides a basis for our court to 

hear his case, we lack jurisdiction over his appeal. 
5 TREADWAY v. DVA

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs. 

DISMISSED