SHARP V DVA, No. 11-7100 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ PAMELA J. SHARP, Claimant-Appellant, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee. __________________________ 2011-7100 __________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Case No. 07-2481, Judge Robert N. Davis. ____________________________ Decided: November 18, 2011 ____________________________ SANDRA E. BOOTH, of Columbus, Ohio, argued for claimant-appellant. MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. With her on the brief were TONY SHARP v. DVA 2 WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Assistant Director, and MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY, Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and AMAMNDA R. BLACKMON, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. __________________________ Before LOURIE, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Pamela J. Sharp ( Sharp ) appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying entitlement to attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). See Sharp v. Shinseki, No. 07-2481(E) (Vet. App. Feb. 8, 2011). Sharp s appeal does not present a constitutional issue or a question of law. Rather, her appeal would require this court to review questions of fact and application of law to fact. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), however, we lack jurisdiction to review such factual determinations. We must therefore dismiss Sharp s appeal. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED COSTS Each party 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.
