Case Name: Ernest L. BELL, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-04
Citations: 335 F. App'x 50
Docket Number: No. 2009-7096
Parties: Ernest L. BELL, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 335
Pages: 50–51

Head Matter:
Ernest L. BELL, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 2009-7096.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Nov. 4, 2009.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 30, 2009.
Ernest L. Bell, of Lake Charles, Louisiana, pro se.
Scott A. MacGriff, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Brian M. Simkin, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Christa A. Childers, Staff Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.
Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ernest L. Bell appeals the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that he abandoned his claim for an earlier effective date for his total disability based upon individual un-employability rating. Bell v. Shinseki, No. 07-1398, 2009 WL 224452 (Ct.Vet.App. Jan. 30, 2009). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Our authority to review a decision of the Veterans Court is limited. We may review such a decision only to the extent that it pertains to the validity of "a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter)," or "to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision." 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), 7292(c). Absent a constitutional issue, we do not otherwise have jurisdiction to review either "a challenge to a factual determination" or "a challenge to a law or regu lation as applied to the facts of a particular case." Id. § 7292(d)(2).
Bell does not assert that the Veterans Court misinterpreted a statute or regulation or that his case presents constitutional issues. Rather, he challenges the court's application of the jurisprudential rule of abandonment to the facts in his case. We lack jurisdiction to consider this challenge. See Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1362-63 (Fed.Cir.2002).