NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

WILLIE J. COCKRELL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2010-7115 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case no. 09-0500, Judge Lawrence B. 

Hagel. 

____________________ 

Decided: November 5, 2010 

____________________ 

WILLIE J. COCKRELL, Bessemer, Alabama, pro se. 

SCOTT T. PALMER, 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 Attor-
COCKRELL v. DVA 2

ney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and KIRK T.

MANHARDT, Assistant Director. 

__________________________ 

Before GAJARSA, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. Willie J. Cockrell appeals the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”) that affirmed the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals (“Board”) decision denying him entitlement to an 

effective date earlier than July 20, 2005, for his bilateral 

hearing loss and tinnitus. Cockrell v. Shinseki, No. 09-

0500, 2010 WL 2232430, at *1 (Vet. App. June 3, 2010). 

Because Mr. Cockrell is appealing factual determinations, 

or at most, the law as applied to the facts of the case, this 

court lacks jurisdiction to consider his claims and the 

appeal is dismissed. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Cockrell served in the United States Army from 

January 1968 to December 1969. On July, 20, 2005, the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) received Mr. 

Cockrell’s claim for tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss. In 

November 2005, Mr. Cockrell received a VA medical 

examination. Based on the examination’s results, the 

regional office issued a rating decision awarding Mr. 

Cockrell disability benefits for bilateral hearing loss with 

a 20% disability rating and tinnitus with a 10% disability 

rating. The effective date assigned to both the tinnitus 

and bilateral hearing loss disability ratings was July 20, 

2005, which the regional office determined based on the 

date that the “original disability claim . . . was received.” 

Id., at *2. 
3 COCKRELL v. DVA

In December 2005, Mr. Cockrell filed a Notice of Disagreement (“NOD”) with the rating decision. In the NOD, 

he stated, “I do not agree with the date which is being 

used to determine the time that my compensation started. 

I feel that the date of my compensation should go back to 

the day I separated from the military.” Id. In May 2007, 

Mr. Cockrell was afforded a hearing before the regional 

office. The hearing testimony addressed Mr. Cockrell’s 

concerns for his effective date, but did not discuss an 

increase in disability rating. 

In June 2007, Mr. Cockrell appealed to the Board, 

stating that he wished to appeal “[e]ntitlement to an 

effective date earlier than July 20, 2005, for the grant of 

service-connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus.” 

Id. On February 2, 2009, the Board determined that Mr. 

Cockrell was not entitled, by law, to an effective date 

earlier than July 20, 2005. 

Mr. Cockrell appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court; the decision was affirmed. In addition to his 

earlier effective date argument, Mr. Cockrell asserted, for 

the first time, that he wanted his percent rating of disability increased for his hearing loss. Regarding the 

earlier effective date argument, the Veterans Court held 

that Mr. Cockrell “is simply not entitled by law to an 

effective date earlier than the date VA received his claim.” 

Id. The Veterans Court relied on 38 C.F.R. § 3.157(a) 

(2009); the regulation states that the effective date for an 

award of compensation benefits is the later of the date of 

the receipt of the claim or the date when entitlement to 

the benefit arose. Additionally, the Veterans Court noted 

that 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) (2006) states that the effective 

date for an award of disability benefits “shall not be 

earlier than the date of receipt of the application.” 

Cockrell, 2010 WL 2232430, at *2. 
COCKRELL v. DVA 4

The Veterans Court, relying on Maggitt v. West, 202 

F.3d 1370, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2000), decided to exercise its 

discretion to consider Mr. Cockrell’s argument for increased disability ratings, even though the specific argument was not presented before the Board. Cockrell, 2010 

WL 2232430, at *2. Concerning tinnitus, the Veterans 

Court found that “Mr. Cockrell was awarded the maximum disability rating authorized and is not entitled to an 

increase in disability rating.” Id. The Veterans Court 

then reviewed Mr. Cockrell’s hearing loss disability rating 

and decided the proper rating was awarded based on his 

examination results. Id., at *3. 

Mr. Cockrell timely appealed the Veterans Court’s decision to this court. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 

1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), 

this court has jurisdiction over rules of law or the validity 

of any statute or regulation, or an interpretation thereof 

relied on by the Veterans Court in its decision. This court 

may also entertain challenges to the validity of a statute 

or regulation, and may interpret constitutional and statutory provisions as needed for resolution of the matter. 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(c). In contrast, except where an appeal 

presents a constitutional question, this court “may not 

review (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.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Because Mr. 

Cockrell’s single issue falls under the prohibited categories listed in § 7292(d)(2), this court lacks jurisdiction to 

review Mr. Cockrell’s appeal. 

Mr. Cockrell’s entire appeal consists of the following 

statement: “The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 
5 COCKRELL v. DVA

failed to decide correctly regarding dating my hearing loss 

back to December 30, 1969 for my hearing loss.” This 

claim is, at most, a challenge to the Veterans Court’s 

application of laws and regulations to the facts of the 

case. Mr. Cockrell raises no other issues. 

CONCLUSION

Because Mr. Cockrell’s appeal involves neither the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation nor a 

Constitutional challenge, this court is statutorily precluded from considering his claim. Accordingly, the 

appeal is dismissed. 

No Costs.