David G. Brescia v. Robert A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 D OUGLAS K INMAN, Alexander, Webb, and
Kinman, Mason, OH, argued for claimant-appellant.
N ATHANAEL YALE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civ-
il Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also
represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER , ROBERT E.
K IRSCHMAN, J R., SCOTT D. AUSTIN; Y. K EN L EE , AMANDA R.
BLACKMON, D AVID J. BARRANS , Office of General Counsel,

-- 1 of 2 --

BRESCIA v. MCDONALD 2
United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washing-
ton, DC.
______________________
Before M OORE, O’MALLEY , and WALLACH , Circuit Judges.
P ER 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 post-
traumatic stress disorder. Brescia v. McDonald, No. 13-
2780, 2015 WL 307028 (Vet. App. Jan. 26, 2015). Specifi-
cally, 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 jurisdic-
tion. 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 jurisdic-
tion); Chest v. Peake, 283 F. App’x 814, 817 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (“[W]hether or not the remand order was substan-
tially 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 undertak-
ing.”). We therefore dismiss this appeal.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.

-- 2 of 2 --