Hill v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    __________________________
    ANGELA HILL,
    Claimant-Appellant,
    v.
    ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
    AFFAIRS,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    __________________________
    2012-7025
    __________________________
    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
    Veterans Claims in case no. 10-4211, Judge William P.
    Greene, Jr.
    __________________________
    Decided: April 9, 2012
    ___________________________
    ANGELA HILL, of Shreveport, Louisiana, pro se
    ARMANDO A. RODRIGUEZ-FEO, Trial Attorney, Com-
    mercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States
    Department of Justice, for appellee. With him on the
    brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General,
    JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and CLAUDIA BURKE,
    Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was MICHAEL
    HILL   v. DVA                                             2
    J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Depart-
    ment of Veterans Affairs, of Washington DC. Of counsel
    was BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Attorney, Department of Veterans
    Affairs.
    __________________________
    Before DYK, O’MALLEY, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    Angela Hill (“Hill”) appeals from a judgment of the
    U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
    Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a Board of Veter-
    ans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision denying an earlier effec-
    tive date for death pension benefits. Hill v. Shinseki, No.
    10-4211, 
    2011 WL 3759672
     (Vet. App. Aug. 26, 2011). We
    dismiss.
    BACKGROUND
    Hill filed a claim for death pension benefits in Sep-
    tember 2001, after the death of her husband, a veteran. A
    Veterans Affairs regional office (“RO”) denied her claim in
    December 2001 because her income exceeded the maxi-
    mum for receiving a death pension benefit. Hill did not
    file an appeal with respect to the December 2001 decision
    within the period for appeal. In January 2002, Hill filed
    an application for burial benefits, but this application did
    not express dissatisfaction with the December 2001
    decision.
    On July 20, 2007, Hill sought to reopen her claim for
    death pension benefits. In December 2008, the RO
    awarded her benefits, effective July 20, 2007. Hill ap-
    pealed to the Board, seeking an effective date of Septem-
    ber 2001 based on her original claim. The Board denied
    an earlier effective date because Hill had neither ap-
    pealed the RO’s December 2001 decision nor claimed that
    3                                                HILL   v. DVA
    it was based on clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”).
    The Veterans Court affirmed, agreeing that the only
    correspondence submitted by Hill between the December
    2001 decision and her July 2007 application was her
    January 2002 application for burial benefits, which could
    not be construed as a notice of disagreement with the
    December 2001 decision. Hill, 
    2011 WL 3759672
    , at *1.
    Hill timely appealed to this court.
    DISCUSSION
    Under 
    38 U.S.C. § 7292
    (c), our jurisdiction to review
    Veterans Court decisions is limited to “challenge[s] to the
    validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation
    thereof.” We 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” unless the appeal
    “presents a constitutional issue.” 
    Id.
     § 7292(d)(2); see
    Guillory v. Shinseki, 
    603 F.3d 981
    , 986 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
    Hill does not challenge the validity or interpretation
    of any statute or regulation. The only issue on appeal is
    the effective date for her death pension benefits. The
    effective date of an award “shall not be earlier than the
    date of receipt of application therefor.”         
    38 U.S.C. § 5110
    (a). Because Hill did not file a notice of disagree-
    ment with the RO’s December 2001 decision within one
    year, that decision became final. See 
    38 U.S.C. § 7105
    (c).
    Hill’s current claim was received on July 20, 2007, and
    she did not allege CUE in the December 2001 decision, so
    she was awarded death pension benefits with the effective
    date of July 20, 2007. The effective date of a claim is a
    question of fact that is beyond our jurisdiction. See Butler
    v. Shinseki, 
    603 F.3d 922
    , 926 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Because
    this court is without jurisdiction, we dismiss.
    HILL   v. DVA           4
    COSTS
    No costs.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2012-7025

Judges: Dyk, O'Malley, Per Curiam, Reyna

Filed Date: 4/9/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024