NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LACY L. ANDERSON,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-7111

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 10-4323, Judge Robert N. Davis.

______________________ 

Decided: March 21, 2014

______________________ 

DEANNE L. BONNER, Bonner Di Salvo, PLLC, of Detroit, Michigan, argued for claimant-appellant. 

ELIZABETH ANNE SPECK, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. On the brief were STUART F. DELERY, 

Assistant Attorney General, BRYANT G. SNEE, Acting 

Director, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Assistant Director, and 

JAMES SWEET, Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief was
2 ANDERSON v. SHINSEKI

MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant General Counsel,

United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was MEGHAN D. ALPHONSO. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Lacy Anderson appeals the decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”) affirming the denial of his request to reopen his 

disability claim. Anderson v. Shinseki, No. 10-4323, 2012 

WL 6727131 (Vet. App. Dec. 28, 2012) (unpublished).

Our jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the 

Veterans Court is limited. We may review challenges to 

the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation 

relied on by the Veterans Court and may interpret constitutional and statutory provisions “to the extent presented 

and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). Except 

to the extent that an appeal presents a constitutional 

issue, however, we have no jurisdiction to review a challenge to a “factual determination” or “law or regulation as 

applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(d)(2).

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5108, a previously-denied 

claim shall be reopened if a claimant submits “new and 

material evidence.” We have held that such evidence is 

required before a claim can be reopened. Barnett v. 

Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Mr. Anderson argues that the Veterans Court erred in affirming the

determination of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals that his 

claim could not be reopened because he failed to present 

adequate “new and material evidence.” However, “the 

question of whether evidence in a particular case is new 

and material is either a factual determination . . . or the 

application of law to the facts of a particular case . . . and 

is, thus, not within this court’s appellate jurisdiction.” Id.
ANDERSON v. SHINSEKI 3

at 1383-84; see also Spencer v. Brown, 17 F.3d 368, 374 

(Fed. Cir. 1994). Mr. Anderson’s attempt to frame his 

challenge as a question of law is unconvincing. Cf. Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224, 225 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 

(“[T]he mere recitation of a basis for jurisdiction by party 

or a court[ ] is not controlling; we must look to the true 

nature of the action.”). 

Accordingly, we dismiss Mr. Anderson’s appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.