NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-7066
CARRIE SHULTZ,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Carrie Shultz, Bennington, Vermont, pro se.
Ellen M. Lynch, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With
her on the brief were Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director, and Kirk T. Manhardt, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief
were David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Tracey P. Warren,
Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. Of counsel
was Michael J. Timinski, Deputy Assistant General Counsel.
Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Judge Mary J. Schoelen.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-7066
CARRIE SHULTZ,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 05-0637, Judge
Mary J. Schoelen.
__________________________
DECIDED: November 14, 2008
__________________________
Before MAYER, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Carrie Shultz, the surviving spouse of Elmer E. Shultz, appeals a decision of the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision
that: (1) denied her claim for service connection for her husband’s actinic keratoses and
basal cell epithelioma, and (2) denied her claim for additional monthly dependency and
indemnity benefits. Shultz v. Nicholoson, No. 05-0637 (Ct. Vet. App. Sept. 28, 2007).
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
the presentation of 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
regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
Shultz does not assert that the Veterans Court misinterpreted a statute or
regulation or that her case presents constitutional issues. Instead, she challenges the
board’s factual determination that her husband’s actinic keratoses and basal cell
epithelioma were not caused, or chronically worsened, by his service-connected
malignant melanoma. Furthermore, she asserts that she is entitled to additional
benefits because the Veterans Court should have found that her husband was 100
percent disabled from melanoma as of 1958.
This court lacks jurisdiction to “review any challenge to a factual determination or
any challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.”
Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted); Ferguson v. Principi, 273 F.3d 1072, 1074-75 (Fed. Cir.
2001). Because Shultz’s appeal involves only challenges to factual determinations
regarding service connection, we are without jurisdiction to consider it.
2008-7066 2