BRESCIA v. MCDONALD , No. 15-7059 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DAVID G. BRESCIA, Claimant-Appellant v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2015-7059 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 13-2780, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr. ______________________ Decided: February 10, 2016 ______________________ MAXWELL DOUGLAS KINMAN, Alexander, Webb, and Kinman, Mason, OH, argued for claimant-appellant. NATHANAEL YALE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., SCOTT D. AUSTIN; Y. KEN LEE, AMANDA R. BLACKMON, DAVID J. BARRANS, Office of General Counsel, 2 BRESCIA v. MCDONALD United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________ Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. David G. Brescia (“Brescia”) appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) which affirmed the May 6, 2013 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) denying his claim for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder. Brescia v. McDonald, No. 132780, 2015 WL 307028 (Vet. App. Jan. 26, 2015). Specifically, Brescia argues that: (1) the Board and the Veterans Court improperly ignored or downgraded certain lay evidence he submitted in support of his service connection claim; and (2) the Department of Veterans Affairs failed to comply with the Board’s prior remand order. Because Brescia’s arguments on appeal concern only challenges to factual determinations or, at most, the application of law to the facts of his case, we lack jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) (2012); see also Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the claimant’s disagreement with the Veterans Court over whether a specialist complied with the Board’s remand order was a factual challenge beyond our jurisdiction); Chest v. Peake, 283 F. App’x 814, 817 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[W]hether or not the remand order was substantially fulfilled—is not a question that can be reviewed without our examining the Veterans Court’s application of law to fact, a task that we are prohibited from undertaking.”). We therefore dismiss this appeal. DISMISSED COSTS No 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.
