Zavilla v. Peake

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-7088
JACK L. ZAVILLA,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Jack L. Zavilla, of Chicora, Pennsylvania, pro se.
J. Reid Prouty, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With
him on the brief were Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director, and Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director. Of counsel on the brief were
David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Martie Adelman, Attorney,
Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of
Washington, DC.
Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Judge Lawrence B. Hagel
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-7088
JACK L. ZAVILLA,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 04-236, Judge
Lawrence B. Hagel.
__________________________
DECIDED: October 10, 2008
__________________________
Before MAYER, SCHALL, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Jack L. Zavilla appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), Zavilla v. Nicholson, No. 04-236 (Vet. App. Jan. 24,
2006), affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision denying service connection for a
back disorder. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss his appeal.
Zavilla served in the United States Navy from 1974 to 1976. In 1999, the board
granted him service connection for a left knee disability. In February 2004, the board
denied service connection for a back disorder. The board determined that: (1) the back
condition was not incurred in service, and (2) the disorder was not caused by his
service-connected knee disability. On appeal, the Veterans Court affirmed.
Zavilla sets forth many reasons why he believes the decision of the Veterans
Court was erroneous. He argues that the court improperly relied on the opinions of
“unqualified” medical examiners in concluding that his back disability order was not
service connected. He further contends that the court incorrectly found that he suffered
no prejudice as a result of an alleged failure to provide adequate notice of the evidence
required to substantiate his claims. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a).
Our authority to review a decision of the Veterans Court is limited. We may
review such a decision only to the extent that it pertains to the validity of “a rule of law or
of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination
as to a factual matter),” or “to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the
extent presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. §§ 7292(a), 7292(c). Unless
an appeal from the Veterans Court presents a constitutional issue, we do not otherwise
have jurisdiction to review either “a challenge to a factual determination” or “a challenge
to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(d)(2).
Because Zavilla’s appeal involves only challenges to factual determinations and
the application of law to the facts of his case, we have no authority to consider it. See
Newhouse v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Our jurisdictional
statute . . . prevents us from reviewing [a veteran’s] contentions regarding actual
prejudice.”); Tetro v. Principi, 314 F.3d 1310, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“This court does
2006-7088 2
not review factual determinations by the [Veterans Court], or its application of law to
factual situations.”).
2006-7088 3