Case: 19-2450 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 04/07/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DAWN MARIE MOORE,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
ROBERT L. WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2019-2450
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 18-1005, Judge Michael P. Allen.
______________________
Decided: April 7, 2020
______________________
DAWN MARIE MOORE, New Boston, TX, pro se.
DAVID MICHAEL KERR, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
JOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR., LOREN
MISHA PREHEIM; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, EVAN SCOTT GRANT, Of-
fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet-
erans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 19-2450 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 04/07/2020
2 MOORE v. WILKIE
Before MOORE, CLEVENGER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Dawn M. Moore appeals a United States Court of Ap-
peals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) decision af-
firming the Board of Veterans Appeals’ denial of
entitlement to an effective date before November 12, 2013
for the award of service-connected disability benefits for
Ms. Moore’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Moore
v. Wilkie, No. 18-1005, 2019 WL 1511214 (Vet. App. April
8, 2019). Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Moore served on active duty from March 1996 to
July 2007. In August 2007, Ms. Moore submitted a claim
for benefits for several disabilities. She was granted bene-
fits for those claims from July 28, 2007, the day after her
discharge from service. One such claim was for migraine
headaches for which she was granted a 30 percent disabil-
ity rating. S.A. 10–11. 1
On November 12, 2013, the regional office received Ms.
Moore’s benefit claim for service connection for PTSD. S.A.
18. The regional office granted service connection for
PTSD with an effective date of November 12, 2013, the date
of receipt of Ms. Moore’s claim. S.A. 17–18.
Ms. Moore appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals,
arguing that she was entitled to an earlier effective date of
July 28, 2007 due to her in-service diagnosis of anxiety and
depression and treatment for psychiatric symptoms prior
to her discharge. S.A. 17. The Board denied Ms. Moore’s
request for an earlier effective date, reasoning that the first
claim for service connection for PTSD was received on
1 Citations to “S.A.” refer to the Supplemental Ap-
pendix included with the government’s brief.
Case: 19-2450 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 04/07/2020
MOORE v. WILKIE 3
November 12, 2013 and that Ms. Moore had not demon-
strated an intent to file a claim for service connection for
PTSD prior to that date. S.A. 18–19. The Board found that
the mere presence of a diagnosis and treatment for a psy-
chiatric disorder prior to November 12, 2013 in Ms. Moore’s
medical records did not establish entitlement to an earlier
effective date. S.A. 19.
Ms. Moore appealed the Board’s decision to the Veter-
ans Court, arguing that the Board failed to recognize her
2007 benefit claim as an informal claim for service connec-
tion for PTSD. Specifically, Ms. Moore argued that her
medical records, containing references to treatment for
psychiatric symptoms in combination with her 2007 claim
for service connection for migraine headaches, constituted
a claim for service connection for PTSD. S.A. 2. In a single-
judge decision, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s de-
cision, holding that the Board did not clearly err in conclud-
ing that Ms. Moore did not intend to seek disability
compensation for PTSD prior to November 12, 2013. S.A.
2. Ms. Moore moved for reconsideration or for a panel de-
cision, arguing that “the Memorandum decision overlooked
the fact that an informal communication was the main
bas[i]s of [her] complaint.” J.A. 4. 2 The motion for recon-
sideration was denied, and a panel of the Veterans Court
issued a decision adopting the single-judge decision. S.A.
8. The Veterans Court entered judgment on September 17,
2019. Ms. Moore appeals.
DISCUSSION
We have limited jurisdiction in reviewing decisions of
the Veterans Court. We have jurisdiction “to review and
decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regu-
lation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret
2 Citations to “J.A.” refer to the Corrected Appendix
filed by Ms. Moore (Dkt. 21).
Case: 19-2450 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 04/07/2020
4 MOORE v. WILKIE
constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent pre-
sented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c).
Except to the extent an appeal raises a constitutional issue,
we may not review “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).
Here, Ms. Moore contests the Board’s assignment of
November 12, 2013 as the earliest effective date for her
PTSD claim. Specifically, Ms. Moore argues that the effec-
tive date should be July 28, 2007 because she allegedly
made an informal claim for benefits in 2007 through infor-
mal communication. The government responds that Ms.
Moore seeks review of the application of law to facts, and
that such review is beyond our jurisdiction. We agree. The
Board considered Ms. Moore’s alleged informal claim, but
nonetheless found that Ms. Moore’s 2007 claims did not ev-
idence her intent to seek benefits for PTSD at that time.
The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision finding
that Ms. Moore did not intend to claim benefits for PTSD
when she filed her claims in 2007 for other disabilities.
“[F]actual findings of when a disability was claimed or ser-
vice connection established are not subject to our review.”
Butler v. Shinseki, 603 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see
also 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c), (d)(2). Because we do not have
jurisdiction to review the factual determinations underly-
ing the Veterans Court’s decision, we must dismiss Ms.
Moore’s appeal.
CONCLUSION
We lack jurisdiction over the Veterans Court’s factual
findings that Ms. Moore challenges in her appeal. Accord-
ingly, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.