NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 

___________________________ 

DAVID E. BOELZNER, Goodman, Allen & Filetti, of 

Richmond, Virginia, argued for claimant-appellant. 

STACEY GRIGSBY, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondentappellee. With her on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, 
RAZO v. DVA 2

and MARTIN F. HOCKEY, Assistant Director. Of counsel on 

the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Attorney, United 

States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, 

DC. 

__________________________ 

Before RADER, Chief Judge, and LOURIE and LINN, Circuit 

Judges. 

RADER, 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 records 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 filed 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 determine 
3 RAZO v. DVA

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 of a 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 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). 

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 the 
RAZO 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. Claims 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.