NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# mlniteb**~tate~** 

# (!Courtof**§ppeal~** 

# fortbejf

# eberal(!Circuit

MASONL. WILSON,

Claimant-Appellant,



### v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARYOFVETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.

2012-7123

Appeal from the United States Court ofAppeals for Veterans Claims in case no. 10-4019, Judge Ronald M. Holdaway.

Before RADER, 

### ChiefJudge, LOURIE, and SCHALL, 

### Circuit Judges. PERCURIAM.



### ONMOTION



### ORDER Case: 12-7123 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 11/21/2012MASONWILSONv. SHINSEKI 2 Mason L. Wilson moves for default judgment in this veterans benefits case. The court denies that motion, and considers the merits ofthe appeal. Mr. Wilson served on active duty from April 1968 to January 1970. After service, Mr. Wilson was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and has been receiving DepartmentofVeterans Mfairs (DV A) disability compensationbenefits for his PTSD since August 2004, at a 10% disability rating. In September 2006, Mr. Wilson sought an increased disability rating and entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). He claimedthathis priorAugust 2004 decision granted him a 100% disability rating. He was scheduled for VA medical examinations to determine whetherhe metthe criteriafor
an increased rating, but refused to attend. Based on the limited evidence ofrecord, the DVA regional office (RO) denied Mr. Wilson's claims. On appeal to the Board ofVeterans' Appeals (Board), Mr. Wilson continued to press his argument that he had already been entitledto a 100% disability rating, andthus there was no need for further VA medical examination. The Board, however, upheld the RO's rulings. The Board explained that the evidence that was ofrecord failed to establish the occupational or social impairment required to meetthe criteriafor the benefits he had sought. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed. Like the Board, the Court explained that Mr. Wilson's assumption that he had already been entitled to 100% disability rating was mistaken. Because, explained the court, Mr. Wilson had failed to offer any actual assignment of error in the Board's decision, it affirmed. This appeal followed. Case: 12-7123 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 11/21/20123 .L

MASONWILSONv. SHINSEKI Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited by statute. Under 38 U.S.C. 

### § 7292(a), this court hasjurisdiction over rules oflaw or the validity ofany statute or regulation, or an interpretation thereof relied on by the court in its decision. This court may also entertain challenges to the validity ofa statute or regulation, and may interpret constitutional and statutory provisions as needed for resolution of the matter. 38 U.s.C. § 7292(c). In contrast, except where an appeal presents a constitutional question, we lack jurisdiction over challenges to factual determinations or laws or regulations as applied to the particular case. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Although Mr. Wilson was not required to file a legally impeccable submission to proceed on appeal, he was required to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction and for the most part he has failed to make such a showing. Much ofMr. Wilson's briefand motion appear to be dedicated to his argument that he is entitled to 100% disability rating. Because the essence ofthat argument is simply a disagreement with the Board and Veterans Court over whether the facts demonstrate entitlement to his requested relief, it challenges the decision of the Veterans Court on a factual matter, as to which this court does nothavejurisdiction. The only other argument Mr. Wilson appears to raise is that the Veterans Court judge assigned to his appeal was a retired judge that had no authority to decide the matter. As the Secretary ofVeterans Mfairs points out, however, retired Veterans Court judges may be recalled for active service. See 38 U.s.C. § 7257. To the extent that Mr. Wilson contends that thejudge was not in active service at the time ofdecidingthis appeal, he has failed to demonstrate that the judge's recall status had expired at the time ofdecidingthis appeal. Accordingly, Case: 12-7123 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 11/21/2012MASONWILSONv. SHINSEKI 

### ITIs ORDERED

### THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) All othermotions are denied as moot. (3) Each side shallbearits owncosts.

FOR THE COURT

/s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s26 4 Case: 12-7123 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 11/21/2012