NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mlniteb ~tate~ (!Court of §ppeal~

for tbe jfeberal (!Circuit

MASON L. WILSON,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

2012-7123

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for

Veterans Claims in case no. 10-4019, Judge Ronald M.

Holdaway.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and SCHALL, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Case: 12-7123 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 11/21/2012
MASON WILSON v. SHINSEKI 2

Mason L. Wilson moves for default judgment in this

veterans benefits case. The court denies that motion, and

considers the merits of the 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 Department of Veterans Mfairs (DVA) disability

compensation benefits 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

claimed that his prior August 2004 decision granted him a

100% disability rating. He was scheduled for VA medical

examinations to determine whether he met the criteria for

an increased rating, but refused to attend. Based on the

limited evidence of record, the DVA regional office (RO)

denied Mr. Wilson's claims.

On appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board),

Mr. Wilson continued to press his argument that he had

already been entitled to a 100% disability rating, and thus

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 of record failed to

establish the occupational or social impairment required

to meet the criteria for 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: 11/21/2012
3

.L

MASON WILSON v. SHINSEKI

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans

Court is limited by statute. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a),

this court has jurisdiction over rules of law or the validity

of any statute or regulation, or an interpretation thereof

relied on by the court in its decision. This court may also

entertain challenges to the validity of a 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 of Mr. Wilson's brief and motion appear to be

dedicated to his argument that he is entitled to 100%

disability rating. Because the essence of that 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 not have jurisdiction.

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 of Veterans 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 the judge was not in active

service at the time of deciding this appeal, he has failed to

demonstrate that the judge's recall status had expired at

the time of deciding this appeal.

Accordingly,

Case: 12-7123 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 11/21/2012
MASON WILSON v. SHINSEKI

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) All other motions are denied as moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s26

4

Case: 12-7123 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 11/21/2012