NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-7247
BENJAMIN WRIGHT, JR.,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
GORDON H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Benjamin Wright, Jr., of Morehead, Minnesota, pro se.
Douglas K. Mickle, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With
him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson,
Director, and Steven J. Gillingham, 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.
Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Judge William A. Moorman
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-7247
BENJAMIN WRIGHT, JR.,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
GORDON H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________________
DECIDED: October 3, 2007
____________________________
Before SCHALL, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and MOORE, Circuit
Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Benjamin Wright, Jr. appeals an order from the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) decision, which
denied Wright’s request to reopen his claim for service connection disability for an
alleged psychiatric disorder. Wright v. Nicholson, No. 05-2046 (Vet. App. May 31,
2007). Because Wright does not present an issue on appeal that falls within the
statutory grant of jurisdiction for this court, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Wright served on active duty with the United States Air Force from May 1971 to
October 1972. Wright underwent a separation examination in September 1972. He
was diagnosed with a sociopathic personality; however, the Examiner stated that Wright
did not have psychosis, psychoneurosis, neurosis, or any other mental or physical
condition. Wright applied for benefits for an allegedly service-connected psychiatric
disability, but his claim was denied by a Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO) in August
1981.
Wright did not appeal the RO’s original decision, but he did make numerous
subsequent attempts to reopen his claim for disability. The Board issued denied each
of his requests in decisions dated October 1985, November 1994, and January 2001,
each time concluding that Wright failed to submit new and material evidence warranting
a reopening of his claim. After the January 2001 decision, Wright continued to send
letters to the Board regarding his claim. In response, the Board issued a June 2005
decision, again denying Wright’s request to reopen his claim. The Board’s June 2005
decision described the evidence previously in Wright’s file as well as the submissions
that Wright had made since the Board’s January 2001 decision. The new submissions
were approximately 50 letters written by Wright that essentially reiterated information
that was previously on file and arguments that Wright made in his two previous
hearings. Thus, the Board concluded that the evidence was not new and material
because it was “cumulative and redundant of the evidence on file at the time of previous
adjudications.”
Wright appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court. The Veterans Court
affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the Board’s determination that Wright failed to
present new and material evidence to warrant a reopening of his claim was not clearly
erroneous. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
2007-7247 2
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited. We have
jurisdiction to “review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or
regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory
provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c).
However, unless a constitutional issue is presented, we may not review factual
determinations or the application of law or regulation to a particular set of facts. Id. at
§ 7292(d)(2) (providing that unless a constitutional issue is raised we cannot 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”).
In this case, Wright is appealing the Veterans Court’s affirmance of the Board’s
decision that Wright had not submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen
his disability claim. “[T]he question of whether evidence in a particular case is ‘new and
material’ is either a ‘factual determination’ under section 7292(d)(2)(A) or the application
of law to ‘the facts of a particular case’ under section 7292(d)(2)(B) and is, thus, not
within this court’s appellate jurisdiction.” Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed.
Cir. 1996) (citing Spencer v. Brown, 17 F.3d 368, 374 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Even construing the allegations in Wright’s appeal as generously as possible
given his pro se status, we are unable to find any issue raised by Wright that falls within
the jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
COSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs.
2007-7247 3