Launa G. Ogburn v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veter- Ans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LAUNA G. OGBURN,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETER-
ANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-1888
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-185, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: November 4, 2022
______________________
L AUNA G. O GBURN , Woodbridge, VA, pro se.
ANNE D ELMARE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, C LAUDIA BURKE, P ATRICIA M. MC CAR-
THY ; RICHARD STEPHEN H UBER, Y. K EN L EE , Office of Gen-
eral Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 22-1888 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 11/04/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

OGBURN v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE and P ROST , Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Launa G. Ogburn appeals a decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissing
her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Veterans
Court lacked jurisdiction to hear Ms. Ogburn’s appeal, we
affirm.
BACKGROUND
On September 8, 2021, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
granted Ms. Ogburn service connection for an eye disability
and remanded her remaining claims for further develop-
ment. S. Appx. 9–15. Two days later, on September 10,
the regional office issued a decision assigning Ms. Ogburn’s
eye disability a disability rating of zero percent. S. Appx.
28. The rating decision was sent to Ms. Ogburn with a
cover letter dated September 13, 2021. S. Appx. 16–27.
Ms. Ogburn filed a Notice of Appeal with the Veterans
Court listing September 13, 2021, instead of September 10,
as the date of the decision she wished to appeal. S. Appx. 1.
Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252 and 7266, the Veterans
Court dismissed Ms. Ogburn’s appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion because the Board had not issued any final, adverse
decision. S. Appx. 1–2. In doing so, it explained that to the
extent Ms. Ogburn intended to appeal the September 8
Board decision, she had in fact already done so and has a
case pending before the Veterans Court. The Veterans
Court further explained that to the extent Ms. Ogburn was
appealing the September 10 rating decision, she was re-
quired to first appeal that decision to the Board before ap-
pealing to the Veterans Court. S. Appx. 1–2. Therefore,
the Veterans Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Ms.
Ogburn appeals.
Case: 22-1888 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 11/04/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

OGBURN v. MCDONOUGH 3
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction over decisions of the Veterans Court is
limited. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we may review “the
validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of
law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation
thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter)
that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the
decision.” Except with respect to constitutional issues, 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.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Whether
the Veterans Court had jurisdiction is a matter of statutory
interpretation we review de novo. In re Wick, 70 F.3d 367,
370 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Ms. Ogburn argues she did not need to appeal the Sep-
tember 10 regional office decision to the Board for the Vet-
erans Court to have jurisdiction. Appellant’s Informal
Reply Br. at 3. The Veterans Court, however, only has ju-
risdiction over final Board decisions, not decisions from the
regional office. 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a). Because the Veterans
Court did not err in its determination that it does not have
jurisdiction over regional office decisions, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 22-1888 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 11/04/2022

-- 3 of 3 --