NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

ANGELA HILL, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2012-7025 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case no. 10-4211, Judge William P. 

Greene, Jr. 

__________________________ 

Decided: April 9, 2012 

___________________________ 

ANGELA HILL, of Shreveport, Louisiana, pro se 

ARMANDO A. RODRIGUEZ-FEO, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, for appellee. With him on the 

brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, 

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and CLAUDIA BURKE, 

Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was MICHAEL 
HILL v. DVA 2

J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington DC. Of counsel 

was BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Attorney, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

__________________________ 

Before DYK, O’MALLEY, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM.

Angela Hill (“Hill”) appeals from a judgment of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision denying an earlier effective date for death pension benefits. Hill v. Shinseki, No. 

10-4211, 2011 WL 3759672 (Vet. App. Aug. 26, 2011). We 

dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

Hill filed a claim for death pension benefits in September 2001, after the death of her husband, a veteran. A 

Veterans Affairs regional office (“RO”) denied her claim in 

December 2001 because her income exceeded the maximum for receiving a death pension benefit. Hill did not 

file an appeal with respect to the December 2001 decision 

within the period for appeal. In January 2002, Hill filed 

an application for burial benefits, but this application did 

not express dissatisfaction with the December 2001 

decision. 

On July 20, 2007, Hill sought to reopen her claim for 

death pension benefits. In December 2008, the RO 

awarded her benefits, effective July 20, 2007. Hill appealed to the Board, seeking an effective date of September 2001 based on her original claim. The Board denied 

an earlier effective date because Hill had neither appealed the RO’s December 2001 decision nor claimed that 
3 HILL v. DVA

it was based on clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”). 

The Veterans Court affirmed, agreeing that the only 

correspondence submitted by Hill between the December 

2001 decision and her July 2007 application was her 

January 2002 application for burial benefits, which could 

not be construed as a notice of disagreement with the 

December 2001 decision. Hill, 2011 WL 3759672, at *1. 

Hill timely appealed to this court. 

DISCUSSION

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c), our jurisdiction to review 

Veterans Court decisions is limited to “challenge[s] to the 

validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation 

thereof.” 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” unless the appeal 

“presents a constitutional issue.” Id. § 7292(d)(2); see

Guillory v. Shinseki, 603 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

Hill does not challenge the validity or interpretation 

of any statute or regulation. The only issue on appeal is 

the effective date for her death pension benefits. The 

effective date of an award “shall not be earlier than the 

date of receipt of application therefor.” 38 U.S.C. 

§ 5110(a). Because Hill did not file a notice of disagreement with the RO’s December 2001 decision within one 

year, that decision became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c). 

Hill’s current claim was received on July 20, 2007, and 

she did not allege CUE in the December 2001 decision, so 

she was awarded death pension benefits with the effective 

date of July 20, 2007. The effective date of a claim is a 

question of fact that is beyond our jurisdiction. See Butler 

v. Shinseki, 603 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Because 

this court is without jurisdiction, we dismiss. 
HILL v. DVA

4

COSTS

No costs.