Anita Bumgardner v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ANITA BUMGARDNER,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1461
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-5111, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
Jr.
______________________
Decided: October 16, 2025
______________________
J OHN B. WELLS , Law Office of John B. Wells, Slidell,
LA, argued for claimant-appellant.
SOSUN B AE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Divi-
sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
WILLIAM J AMES G RIMALDI, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
YAAKOV R OTH ; BRIAN D. G RIFFIN, J ONATHAN K RISCH , Office
Case: 24-1461 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 10/16/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

BUMGARDNER v. COLLINS 2
of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before P ROST , CUNNINGHAM , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Anita Bumgardner, surviving spouse of Army veteran
Clifford Bumgardner, appeals a decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
Court”). Ms. Bumgardner’s appeal challenges the Veterans
Court’s determination to affirm the decision of the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals, which denied service connection for
Mr. Bumgardner’s cause of death and Ms. Bumgardner’s
entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation.
Ms. Bumgardner raises numerous issues challenging fac-
tual determinations or that require the application of law
to fact. She fails, however, to challenge any particular as-
pect of the Veterans Court’s decision based on a rule of law
or the validity or interpretation of any statute or regula-
tion. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c), (d)(1); see id. § 7292(d)(2) (This
court “may not review” “a challenge to a factual determina-
tion” or “a challenge to a law . . . as applied to the facts of a
particular case.”).1 We therefore dismiss this appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
1 Nor has Ms. Bumgardner developed any legitimate
constitutional challenge. Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[The appellant’s] characterization
of [a] question as constitutional in nature does not confer
upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.”).
Case: 24-1461 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 10/16/2025

-- 2 of 2 --