Aspry v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ ROBERT ASPRY, JR., Claimant-Appellant, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee. __________________________ 2011-7137 __________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in case no. 08-3020, Judge William A. Moorman. __________________________ Decided: February 23, 2012 __________________________ SANDRA W. WISCHOW, Goodman, Allen & Filetti, of Richmond, Virginia, argued for claimant-appellant. MICHAEL P. GOODMAN, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depart- ment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respon- dent-appellee. On the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant ASPRY v. DVA 2 Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, BRIAN M. SIMKIN, Assistant Director, and SCOTT D. AUSTIN, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and RACHAEL T. SHENKMAN, Attorney, United States Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. __________________________ Before PROST, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Robert Aspry, Jr., appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), denying his claim based on hearing loss. Al- though Mr. Aspry frames the issue on appeal as whether the Veterans Court applied the correct legal standard, in effect he disagrees with the application of the “clear and unmistakable evidence” standard of 38 U.S.C. § 1111 to the facts of his case. We do not have jurisdiction to re- view the Veterans Court’s application of the law to the facts unless it presents a constitutional issue. Jackson v. Shinseki, 587 F.3d 1106, 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); cf. Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224, 225 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he mere recitation of a basis for jurisdiction by either party or a court[] is not controlling; we must look to the true nature of the action.”). Accordingly, we dismiss Mr. Apsry’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. COSTS Each party shall bear its own costs. DISMISSED