Case Name: Robert L. HUNT, 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: 2010-06-15
Citations: 383 F. App'x 939
Docket Number: No. 2009-7134
Parties: Robert L. HUNT, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LOURIE, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 939–939

Head Matter:
Robert L. HUNT, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 2009-7134.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 15, 2010.
Virginia A. Girard-Brady, ABS Legal Advocates, P.A., of Lawrence, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.
Sameer Yerawadekar, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Dana Raffaelli, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, of Washington, DC.
Before LOURIE, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Hunt appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("Veterans Court") affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals ("the Board") denying entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability. Hunt v. Shinseki, — Fed.Appx. -, 2009 WL 1904343 (2009). Hunt argues that the Veterans Court erred in its interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) by accepting the reasons and bases set forth by the Board for rejecting certain evidence and by not independently reviewing those reasons for adequacy and justification. In effect, Hunt is asking this court to review factual determinations. Such review is outside the scope of our jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss.
DISMISSED.