Opinion ID: 626017
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This Court's Authority

Text: We begin with DVA's challenge to this court's authority to review Akers's appeal. This court's power to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) states that [e]xcept to the extent that an appeal under this chapter presents a constitutional issue, [this court] may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case. See also Ellington v. Peake, 541 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2008) (explaining with regard to an alleged informal claim that the interpretation of the contents of a claim for benefits [is] a factual issue over which we [do] not have jurisdiction. (citation omitted)); Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed.Cir. 2004) ([W]hile we can review questions of law, we cannot review applications of law to fact.). While this court agrees with DVA that the Veterans Court recited the Board's fact finding in its own opinion, and that such fact finding is beyond this court's jurisdiction, it is apparent that the Veterans Court based its holding not exclusively on that fact finding, but also on its interpretation of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 and implicitly the statutory provision it implements, 38 U.S.C. § 5108. The Veterans Court effectively interpreted those provisions as requiring that an informal claim to reopen a previously decided claim be accompanied by new and material evidence in order to establish an effective date of benefits. According to the Veterans Court, [i]n order for the September document to have constituted a claim to reopen, it would have needed accompanying new and material evidence. Veterans Court Op., at . Akers is therefore correct that this court has the authority to review the Veterans Court's interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 5108 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.156.