NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

VALERIE M. FOBBS, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2011-7154 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case no. 09-1998, Judge Davis. 

__________________________ 

Decided: December 12, 2011 

__________________________ 

VALERIE M. FOBBS, of Garland, Texas, pro se. 

JOSHUA A. MANDLEBAUM, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondentappellee. With him on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, 

and FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR., Assistant Director. Of 
FOBBS v. DVA 2

counsel on the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy 

Assistant General Counsel, and CHRISTA A. SHRIBER, Staff 

Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 

of Washington, DC. 

__________________________ 

Before NEWMAN, PLAGER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Valerie M. Fobbs, surviving spouse of veteran Charles 

C. Fobbs, seeks review of the February 28, 2011, memorandum decision of the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”).1 That decision 

affirmed a May 20, 2009, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that denied service connection for 

the cause of Mr. Fobbs’ death. Because Mrs. Fobbs does 

not raise any issues within our jurisdiction, we dismiss

her appeal. 

I. BACKGROUND

The veteran, Charles C. Fobbs, served on active duty 

in the Merchant Marine from April 1942 to August 1945, 

including extended service at sea during WWII. Mr. 

Fobbs passed away on January 2, 1985. His death certificate indicated that he died from pneumococcus meningitis, sepsis, and a urinary tract infection. At the time of 

his death, Mr. Fobbs was not service connected for any 

disabilities. 

Years later, the veteran’s surviving spouse, Valerie M. 

Fobbs, in August 1998 filed a claim for service connection 

for the cause of her husband’s death. Mrs. Fobbs con-

 1 Fobbs v. Shinseki, No. 09-1998 (Vet. App. Feb. 28, 

2011). 
3 FOBBS v. DVA

tended that her husband’s death was related to his exposure to asbestos while in service. The Veterans Affairs 

(“VA”) regional office (“RO”) denied Mrs. Fobbs’ claim in 

November 2000, February 2002, and March 2003. 

In May 2003, Mrs. Fobbs appealed to the Board. The 

Board requested an opinion from a VA medical examiner 

as to whether Mr. Fobbs’ death was caused by, or related 

to, possible exposure to asbestos. The examiner opined 

that Mr. Fobbs’ possible exposure to asbestos while in 

service had no bearing on his death. Based on that opinion, the Board concluded that there was no competent 

evidence of record supporting Mrs. Fobbs’ claim. In the 

Appeal of Valerie M. Fobbs, No. 03-18 501, slip op. at 5 

(Bd. Vet. App. June 23, 2006). 

Mrs. Fobbs appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court. The Veterans Court found that the Board’s 

medical inquiry had been too narrow, and remanded with 

instructions to obtain a medical opinion as to whether it 

was as likely as not that Mr. Fobbs’ death was related to 

service in any way other than asbestos exposure. Fobbs v. 

Peake, No. 06-2931, slip op. at 2-3 (Vet. App. Feb. 6, 

2008). 

On remand, a second VA examiner reviewed Mr. 

Fobbs’ medical history and concluded that his death was 

neither caused by, nor resulted from, his military service, 

including any asbestos exposure or other environmental 

exposure. The Board then issued a decision that denied 

Mrs. Fobbs’ claim of entitlement to service connection for 

Mr. Fobbs’ death. In the Appeal of Valerie M. Fobbs, No. 

03-18 501, slip op. at 8 (Bd. Vet. App. May 20, 2009). The 

Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision. Fobbs v. 

Shinseki, No. 09-1998 (Vet. App. February 28, 2011). 

Mrs. Fobbs now appeals to this court. 
FOBBS v. DVA 4

II. DISCUSSION

This court’s review of Veterans Court decisions is 

strictly limited by statute. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we 

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.” Unless an appeal presents a constitutional issue, we “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). 

Giving Mrs. Fobbs’ extensive informal brief, including 

the medical reports, the broadest latitude, we identify the 

following eight issues for consideration in this appeal: (1) 

the Board failed to apply the guidelines set forth in M21-

1MR (Service Connection for Disabilities Resulting from 

Exposure to Asbestos) to the facts of this case; (2) the 

Board failed to apply the prisoner of war presumptions of 

38 C.F.R. § 3.309 to the facts of this case; (3) the Veterans 

Court misapplied Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 

(Vet. App. 2007) to the facts of this case; (4) the Board 

misapplied the elements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (Principles 

Relating to Service Connection), § 3.328 (Independent 

Medical Opinions), and § 4.2 (Interpretation of Examination Reports) to the facts of this case; (5) the Veterans 

Court misapplied the benefit of the doubt principle of 38 

U.S.C. § 5107 to the facts of this case; (6) the Veterans 

Court misapplied the presumption of sound condition of 

38 U.S.C. § 1111 to the facts of this case; (7) the VA 

violated its duty under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A to assist in 

developing the veteran’s claim; and (8) the VA violated its 

duty under 38 U.S.C. § 5103 to notify claimants of required information and evidence. 
5 FOBBS v. DVA

It is not always easy to distinguish issues which are 

pure questions of legal interpretation, presenting cases 

over which we have jurisdiction, from cases in which the 

questions challenge a law or regulation as applied to the 

facts of the particular case, cases which by statute we 

may not review. We have considered each of Mrs. Fobbs’ 

arguments and conclude that although they are framed as 

constitutional issues or as challenges to the Veterans 

Court’s interpretation of a statute, in fact the issues are 

not constitutional and the arguments actually challenge 

factual conclusions reached by the Board, or the application of laws and regulations to the facts of this particular 

case. The Veterans Court merely applied established law 

to the facts and circumstances of Mrs. Fobbs’ case. Because we may not review these types of challenges, see 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), we dismiss Mrs. Fobbs’ appeal for 

lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED