Court Opinion

ID: 9958214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 15:02:23.176696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:05.168387
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1936    Document: 21     Page: 1   Filed: 04/08/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                PEARLIE M. BRUNSON,
                  Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

       DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
              VETERANS AFFAIRS,
               Respondent-Appellee
              ______________________

                        2023-1936
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 21-4225, Judge Scott Laurer.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: April 8, 2024
                  ______________________

    PEARLIE M. BRUNSON, Monetta, SC, pro se.

     JOSEPH ALAN PIXLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________

    Before TARANTO, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1936    Document: 21      Page: 2    Filed: 04/08/2024

 2                                   BRUNSON v. MCDONOUGH

 PER CURIAM.
        In August 1969, Pearlie Mae Brunson was legally
 married under South Carolina law to Wallace G. Brunson,
 Jr., a veteran with active service in the U.S. Army from
 June 1969 to June 1971. Appx17, 22, 75. 1 After the
 Brunsons’ legal divorce in July 2014 and Mr. Brunson’s
 death in March 2016, Appx19, 25, Ms. Brunson filed a
 claim for VA death benefits, stating that she was entitled
 to such benefits because she was Mr. Brunson’s surviving
 spouse, Appx80–81. The Regional Office denied that claim
 in August 2016, stating that because the Brunsons had le-
 gally divorced in July 2014 and were not married at the
 time of Mr. Brunson’s death, Ms. Brunson could not, under
 the applicable statutes and regulations, be recognized as
 Mr. Brunson’s surviving spouse. Appx60, 63. The Board
 of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) affirmed that decision, Appx7,
 and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veter-
 ans Court) affirmed the Board, Brunson v. McDonough,
 No. 21-4225, 2023 WL 1771250 (Vet. App. Feb. 6, 2023).
        Ms. Brunson appeals the Veterans Court’s decision.
 We must dismiss because the appeal raises no issue that is
 within our limited jurisdiction. In particular, as relevant
 here, our jurisdiction is limited to “relevant questions of
 law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory
 provisions,” but we “may not review (A) a challenge to a
 factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regu-
 lation as applied to the facts of a particular case,” unless
 that challenge “presents a constitutional issue.” 38 U.S.C.
 § 7292(d); see also § 7292(a). Here, we have no challenge to
 a Veterans Court’s decision on the validity or interpreta-
 tion of a statute or regulation, on constitutional issues, or
 on any other relevant questions of law.

     1    “Appx” refers to the appendix filed by the Secretary
 in this court with its brief as appellee.
Case: 23-1936    Document: 21      Page: 3    Filed: 04/08/2024

 BRUNSON v. MCDONOUGH                                       3

        The Veterans Court, in its decision, reviewed the
 Board’s application of the relevant statutes and regula-
 tions—those which define a “surviving spouse” for pur-
 poses of awarding VA death benefits—to the facts of Mrs.
 Brunson’s claim. See Brunson, 2023 WL 1771250, at *1–2
 & nn.2 & 6 (citing 38 U.S.C. § 101(3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.50(b)).
 And it is that application of law to facts (which we do not
 have jurisdiction to review) that Ms. Brunson challenges
 here. See, e.g., Ms. Brunson’s Informal Brief Part 2 at 4 (“I
 don’t agree with what the Secretary argues that since the
 couple divorce[d] and didn’t remarry, [the] Secretary stated
 that I [don’t] qualify as a surviving spouse. I disagree with
 that decision.”). In her brief on appeal, Ms. Brunson con-
 cededly does not claim to present a question of law or a con-
 stitutional issue. See Ms. Brunson’s Informal Brief Part 1
 at 1–2 (affirming that the Veterans Court’s decision did not
 “involve the validity or interpretation of a statute or regu-
 lation” and did not “decide constitutional issues”).
       Because we do not have jurisdiction to review the
 challenge to the Veterans Court’s decision that Ms.
 Brunson presents, we must dismiss her appeal.
       The parties shall bear their own costs.
                        DISMISSED