DocketNumber: 2011-7140
Citation Numbers: 447 Fed. Appx. 212, 447 F. App'x 212
Judges: Bryson, Per Curiam, Prost, Schall
Filed Date: 11/14/2011
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/5/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit ERIC L. LOGAN, Claimant~Appell0',nt, V. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, _ Respon,den.t-Appellee. 2011-714o ` Appea1 from the United States Court of Appea1s for Veterans C1aims in 10-0794, Judge Rona1d M. H01daWay. ON MOTION Bef0re BRYSON, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Ju,dges. PER CUR1AM. 0 R D E R The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and dismiss Eric L. Logan’s appea1. L0gan has not filed a response By way of background while serving on active duty in the United States Marine Corps, L0gan underwent sur- LOGAN V. DVA 2 gery for a right inguinal hernia. Since l983, he has been entitled to service connection for a hernia condition, but at a noncompensable disability rating. Approximate1y 20 years after being granted service connection, Logan sought an increased rating to-include a compensable disability rating A Department regional office (RO) rendered an initial agency determination denying that claim, but granted him entitlement to ser- vice connection and a 10% disability rating for a surgical scar on his right lower quadrant of his abdomen On appeal, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a com- pensable rating and thus sustained the RO’s determina- tion on Logan’s hernia claim. The Board further noted that Logan had not expressed any disagreement with the 10% evaluation for his surgical scar claim, and as such, that matter was not before the Board. Logan then sought review by the C0urt of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which affirmed the Board’s determina- tion. Logan’s primary contention on appeal was that he should receive an increased rating from 10% to 30% based on the rating criteria The Veterans Court noted, how- ever, that only the surgical scar claim had been rated as compensable and that claim was not before the court. The court further rejected Logan’s general reference to the Board failing to take into account evidence, explaining that Logan failed to provide a record cite for the evidence in question or stated how the evidence related to his hernia claim. Our review of Veterans Court decisions is limited by statute, See Yates v. We.st,213 F.3d 1372
, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2000). By statute, our jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court is limited to those appeals that chal- lenge the validity of a decision of the Veterans Court with respect to a rule of law or the validity of any statute or 3 LOGAN V. DVA regulation, any interpretation thereof, or that raise any constitutional controversies See38 U.S.C. § 7292
. We do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals challenging deter- minations or the application of law to the facts of a par- ticular case, unless there is a constitutional issue present. See38 U.S.C. § 7292
(d)(2). Logan seeks review of the Court of Appeals for Veter- ans Claims’ decision ln his informal brief, 'however, Logan does not raise an argument challenging the valid- ity or interpretation of a specific statute or regulation Nor does this court have jurisdiction to address how the evidence was weighed in either of his claims, for those challenges deal with issues of fact or application of law to fact, which are outside of this court’s limited jurisdiction. Logan’s "constitutional” argument states "[a]s to whether l am Haitian, Black, Caucasian or White since my response is African American with no specificity." Logan appears to use a constitutional “label" without raising an actual constitutional argument within this court’s jurisdiction. See Helfer u. West,174 F.3d 1332
, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Accordingly, lT lS ORDERED THATZ (1) The Secretary’s motions are granted The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT NOV 1 4 2011 lsi J an Horbaly Date J an Horbaly Clerk ED l= wants ron L amount A NOV 14 2011 § §§ 111 11 §5°‘:: nor . .lAN HBRBALY CLERK LOGAN V. DVA ccc Eric L. Logan Douglas G. Edelschick, Esq. s19 lssued As A Mandate: N0V 1 4