Roy L. Hall, Claimant-appellant, v. Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-appellee, 33 F.3d 64 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 33 F.3d 64 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Feb. 3, 1994

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

ORDER

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.


The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(e) and to dismiss Roy L. Hall's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Hall has not responded.

The Court of Veterans Appeals affirmed the Board of Veterans Appeals' decision that denied Hall's request to discontinue an apportionment of $167 per month of his improved disability pension benefits on behalf of his minor child. The Court of Veterans Appeals affirmed the Board's factual findings and stated that "there is a plausible basis in the record for the Board's determinations in this case and that appellant has not demonstrated that the Board committed either factual or legal error which would warrant reversal."

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, this court may review only challenges to the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation, or to the interpretation of a constitutional provision, that the Court of Veterans Appeals relied on in its decision. If an appeal to this court from the Court of Veterans Appeals does not challenge the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation, or the interpretation of a constitutional provision, Sec. 7292(d) requires this court to dismiss the appeal. That section states that this Court "may not 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 his informal brief, Hall argues that the Board and the Court of Veterans Appeals failed to consider various facts concerning his divorce and other proceedings. Hall challenges only factual determinations. As this court has no jurisdiction to conduct such an inquiry, this appeal must be dismissed. See Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224, 225-26 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary's motion to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(e) is granted.

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

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

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.