Alberta C. Panem, Claimant-appellant, v. Edward J. Derwinski, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,respondent-appellee, 979 F.2d 215 (Fed. Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 979 F.2d 215 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Aug. 25, 1992

Before ARCHER, Circuit Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.


ORDER

The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs moves to waive Fed. Cir. R. 27(d) and to dismiss the appeal of Alberta C. Panem for lack of jurisdiction. Panem has not filed a response.

On June 5, 1990, the Board of Veterans Appeals denied Panem's claim for survivor benefits based on a finding that the service-connected disability of Panem's husband did not cause his death. Panem sought review of the Board's decision by the Court of Veterans Appeals. The Court of Veterans Appeals, No. 90-1051, summarily affirmed the Board's decision.

In her informal brief, Panem challenges only the Board's findings of fact and application of law as affirmed by the Court of Veterans Appeals. "In the absence of a challenge to the validity of a statute or a regulation, or the interpretation of a constitutional or statutory provision or a regulation, we have no authority to consider the appeal." Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224, 226 (Fed. Cir. 1992); 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (d) (1) and (2). Panem neither contests the validity of any statute or regulation nor challenges the interpretation of a statute or regulation. Instead, Panem contests the Board's specific findings of fact and the application of the law to her case. We are barred from reviewing such challenges. Livingston, id.; Johnson v. Derwinski, 949 F.2d 394, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Because Panem has not carried her burden of establishing jurisdiction in this court, dismissal is appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary's motion to waive Fed. Cir. R. 27(d) is granted.

(2) The Secretary's motion to dismiss is granted.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.