NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LABANA V. ANDRUS,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7072

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-1098, Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley.

______________________ 

Decided: September 11, 2015

______________________ 

LABANA V. ANDRUS, New Iberia, LA, pro se.

DELISA SANCHEZ, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., SCOTT D.

AUSTIN; MEGHAN ALPHONSO, DAVID J. BARRANS, Office of 

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC.
2 ANDRUS v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Labana Andrus appeals from a decision by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) 

affirming a decision by the Board of Veterans Appeals 

(“Board”) that her dependency and indemnity compensation (“DIC”) benefits were properly terminated. Andrus v. 

McDonald, No. 14-1098 (Vet. App. Feb. 18, 2015) (A. 1–6). 

We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

Alfred Andrus served on active duty in the U.S. Army 

from June 1977 to December 1985. He began receiving 

disability compensation sometime thereafter and on 

March 8, 2003, he married Ms. Andrus. Ten months and 

two days after the marriage, Mr. Andrus died of serviceconnected cardiorespiratory arrest, stage IV congestive 

heart failure, and acute renal failure.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) granted 

DIC benefits to Ms. Andrus effective February 1, 2004. 

Seven years later, the VA wrote to Ms. Andrus that it was 

stopping the DIC benefits because she did not qualify for 

them. The VA explained that Ms. Andrus could challenge 

the decision by submitting proof that she had children 

with Mr. Andrus or had been married to him for over a 

year. The VA subsequently notified Ms. Andrus that it 

had terminated the DIC benefits but that she would not 

have to repay the amounts mistakenly paid to her from 

2004 to 2011. 

Ms. Andrus appealed the termination of her DIC benefits to the Board. She argued that she had “won” her 

DIC case, that she was experiencing financial hardship, 
ANDRUS v. MCDONALD 3

and that it was unfair for the DIC payments to stop after 

having been paid for seven years. The Board denied the 

appeal, concluding that the DIC benefits were properly 

terminated. The Veterans Court affirmed, concluding 

that Ms. Andrus did not meet at least one of the three 

alternative requirements for DIC benefits: (1) she did not 

marry Mr. Andrus within 15 years of the period of service 

in which he incurred the condition that caused his death; 

(2) the marriage was not for at least one year; and (3) no 

children were born to her and Mr. Andrus before or during the marriage. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1304, 1310(a); 38 

C.F.R. §§ 3.50, 3.54(c). Ms. Andrus appeals.

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction for reviewing Veterans Court decisions is limited by statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). We 

have jurisdiction over “all relevant questions of law, 

including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions,” but lack jurisdiction over challenges to factual 

determinations or the application of law to the facts of a 

case. Id.

Ms. Andrus argues that the Veterans Court erred in 

affirming the termination of her DIC benefits. She argues 

that the termination was unfair and resulted in financial 

hardship for her. She argues that her benefits should not 

have been terminated because she had not remarried. 

She argues that the Veterans Court ignored Mr. Andrus’s 

desire for the VA to “take care of” his two step-children. 

Appellant’s Br. 1.

The VA argues that Ms. Andrus does not raise any issues that fall within our jurisdiction. We agree with the 

VA. As acknowledged by Ms. Andrus in her informal 

brief, the Veterans Court did not interpret any statutes or 

regulations or decide any constitutional issues. Its decision involved only factual determinations and application 

of law to those facts. Ms. Andrus does not appeal any 

questions of law and instead only challenges the Veterans 
4 ANDRUS v. MCDONALD

Court’s determination that she does not qualify for DIC 

benefits based on the facts of her case. This question is 

beyond the scope of our jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

Because we do not have jurisdiction over Ms. Andrus’s 

appeal, we dismiss. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.