N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ DAVID F. RAZO, Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________
2011-7101

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Case No. 09-0854, Judge Alan G. Lance.

___________________________ Decided: March 27, 2012

___________________________
D AVID E. B OELZNER , Goodman, Allen & Filetti, of Richmond, Virginia, argued for claimant-appellant.

S TACEY G RIGSBY , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Un ited States Department ofJustice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondentappellee. With her on the brief were T ONY W EST , Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Director,RAZO v. DVA 2

and M ARTIN F. H OCKEY , Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were D AVID J. B ARRANS , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and B RIAN D. G RIFFIN , Attorney, United States Department of Vetera ns Affairs, of Washington, DC.

__________________________
Before R ADER , Chief Judge , and L OURIE and L INN , Circuit Judges

. R ADER , Chief Judge

. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirmed a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision denying Mr. David F. Razo service connection for hearing loss. Because this appeal calls for the adjudication of factual disputes, this court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction.

I.
Mr. Razo served in the United States Army from June 1966 to June 1968. Mr. Razo’s Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) medical record s from examinations between 1969 and 1973 indicated no hearing loss in either ear. During a VA neuropsychiatric examination in 1975, Mr. Razo reported that he experienced ringing in his ears and auditory hallucinations. In April 2003, Mr. Razo f iled a claim seeking service connection for hearing loss. Mr. Razo alleged he was exposed to a loud gun blast aboard a troop carrier in 1966 and began experiencing hearing loss and tinnitus at that time. In August 2003, the San Diego VA Regional Office denied Mr. Razo’s claim for service connection. Mr. Razo timely filed a Notice of Disagreement. In June 2007, the Board also denied Mr. Razo’s claim. On appeal, the Veterans Court remanded for the Board to determineRAZO v. DVA 3

whether, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, the VA was required to provide Mr. Razo a medical examination or opinion to assist him in establishing a nexus between his hearing loss and noise exposure during service. On remand, the Board found Mr. Razo’s current level of hearing loss qualifies as a disability for VA benefit purposes, but found insufficient evidence that the hearing loss was related to Mr. Razo’s active service. The Board found Mr. Razo’s “recent statements regarding his history of hearing loss are not credible.” Joint Appendix (“JA”) at 22. The Board also detected “no competent evidence suggesting that the veteran’s hearing loss is related to his active service.” Id. at 18. Accordingly, the Board determined Mr. Razo was not entitled to a medical nexus opinion and denied his claim for service connection. The Veterans Court affirmed. Mr. Razo timely appealed to this court.

II.
This court’s jurisdiction to review Veterans Court decisions is strictly limited. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), this court may review “the validity ofa decision of the [Veterans Court] on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation. . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the Court in making the decision.” Absent a constitutional issue, this court “may not review (A) a challenge to afactual determination or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the fact s of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

III.
This court has considered Mr. Razo’s claims of legal error by the Veterans Court. However, as the Veterans Court observed with regard to Mr. Razo’s criticism of theRAZO v. DVA 4

Board’s reasons and bases for denying his claim, Mr. Razo’s arguments before this court “ultimately amount[] to a mere disagreement with the Board’s evaluation and interpretation of the evidence.” Razo v. Shinseki , No. 09- 0854, 2010 U.S. App. Vet. Cl aims LEXIS 1679, at *7 (Sept. 13, 2010).Because this court is precluded from reviewing a challenge to factual determinations, this court dismisses Mr. Razo’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

No costs.