Opinion ID: 4513548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: We Lack Jurisdiction over Mr. Kontz’s Appeal

Text: On appeal, Mr. Kontz asserts that the Veterans Court erred in finding that his spouse “is a dependent” because there is “no proof[,] no facts[, and] no evidence.” Appellant’s Br. 1. The Secretary asserts that “Mr. Kontz seeks review of factual findings or the application of law to facts, both of which lie beyond [our] jurisdiction[.]” Appellee’s Br.
Mr. Kontz fails to challenge any particular aspect of the Veterans Court’s decision based on a rule of law or the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation. See generally Appellant’s Br. Nor does Mr. Kontz raise any legitimate constitutional challenge. See generally id. Rather, the VA denied Mr. Kontz’s claim “[b]ased on [his] refusal to supply spousal financial information.” Kontz, 2019 WL 3503995, at . The Veterans Court affirmed this denial, concluding that Mr. Kontz had failed to establish that his spouse was not his “dependent” within the meanings of 38 C.F.R. § 3.23(d)(1), and that, therefore, there was no clear error in the Board’s determination because Mr. Kontz had repeatedly failed to provide his spouse’s financial information as required for an NSCP eligibility determination. Id. at . Because the Veterans Court ultimately denied Mr. Kontz’s request based on the application of law to fact, i.e., his failure to comply with the NSCP request procedures, and Mr. Kontz does not appear to raise a legal challenge to the Veterans Court’s rules or statutes, we lack jurisdiction. See Cromer v. Nicholson, 455 F.3d 1346, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (providing that when the Veterans Court resolves an appeal “independently” of a potential legal issue, we “lack jurisdiction”). Case: 20-1135 Document: 14 Page: 7 Filed: 03/06/2020 KONTZ v. WILKIE 7