CASTILLO v. SHULKIN , No. 16-1539 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ IGNACIO E. CASTILLO, JR., Claimant-Appellant v. DAVID J. SHULKIN, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2016-1539 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 14-1498, Judge Robert N. Davis. ______________________ Decided: April 10, 2017 ______________________ KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Law Offices of Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant. MOLLIE LENORE FINNAN, 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., MARTIN F. HOCKEY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Office of General Counsel, Unit- 2 CASTILLO v. SHULKIN ed States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________ Before LOURIE, MOORE, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Ignacio E. Castillo, Jr. (“Castillo”) appeals from a final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“the Board”) decision granting him a 30% initial disability rating. See Ignacia E. Castillo, Jr. v. Robert A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No. 14-1498, 2015 WL 6605543 (Vet. App. Oct. 30, 2015). The scope of our review in an appeal from the Veterans Court is limited. We may review the validity of a decision with respect to a rule of a law or interpretation of a statute or regulation that was relied upon by the Veterans Court in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) (2002). Except with respect to constitutional issues, 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.” Id. at § 7292(d)(2). Despite Castillo’s attempts to frame his arguments as legal challenges, his appeal, at its core, seeks to impermissibly challenge the Board’s application of law to the facts of his case. Thus, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED

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.