NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

VERNON ELLIOTT, JR., 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2010-7105 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case no. 08-2083, Judge Lawrence B. 

Hagel. 

_________________________ 

Decided: February 16, 2011 

_________________________ 

VIRGINIA A. GIRARD-BRADY, ABS Legal Advocates, 

P.A., Lawrence Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant. 

TARA K. HOGAN, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, argued for respondent-appellee. With her on the 

brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, 

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.,
ELLIOTT v. DVA 2

Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were DAVID J.

BARRANS, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and 

RACHAEL T. SHENKMAN, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. Of counsel 

was KRISTIANA M. BRUGGER, Attorney, United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

__________________________ 

Before GAJARSA, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. 

Vernon Elliott, Jr., seeks review of a judgment of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”) holding that a Department of Veterans 

Affairs (“VA”) medical opinion he received in 2007 was 

adequate. See Elliott v. Shinseki, No. 08-2083 (Vet. App. 

Mar. 1, 2010). Because his challenge is outside the scope 

of our jurisdiction, we dismiss. 

Our authority to review a decision of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Under 

section 7292(a), we may review such a decision only to the 

extent that it pertains to “the validity of any statute or 

regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a 

determination as to a factual matter),” or “to interpret 

constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent 

presented and necessary to a decision.” Id. §§ 7292(a), 

7292(c). Absent a constitutional issue, we do not have 

jurisdiction to review either “a challenge to a factual 

determination” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as 

applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2); 

see McGee v. Peake, 511 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

Because Elliot’s appeal only questions the application of 

established law to the facts of his case, it falls outside the 

scope of our appellate authority. 
3 ELLIOTT v. DVA

Mr. Elliott’s arguments are very similar to those presented by his counsel in a case this court dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction, De Ramos v. Eric K. Shinseki, 358 

Fed. Appx. 167 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (non-precedential). The 

appellant in De Ramos, like Mr. Elliott, attempted to 

frame the issue as the Veterans Court’s interpretation of 

38 C.F.R. § 3.326 to allow VA reliance on an inadequate 

medical examination resulting in medical conclusions by a 

rating specialist. In this case, the Veterans Court did not 

purport to interpret 38 C.F.R. § 3.326. What Mr. Elliott 

characterizes as an interpretation of law is actually an 

unreviewable finding of fact. See Cole v. Shinseki, 309 

Fed. Appx. 399, 2009 WL 260776, *2 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 

(non-precedential) (holding that this court lacked jurisdiction over a challenge to adequacy of medical examiner’s 

opinion because it is a challenge to a factual determination of the Veterans Court or, at most, the application of 

law to facts). 

Accordingly, we dismiss Elliot’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED 

No costs.