Stanley L. Davis v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
STANLEY L. DAVIS,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-2363
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20-5411, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
Jr, Judge Margaret C. Bartley, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: July 18, 2025
______________________
K ENNETH D OJAQUEZ , Carpenter Chartered, Topeka,
KS, argued for claimant-appellant.
TANYA K OENIG , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented
by BRIAN M. BOYNTON , TARA K. H OGAN , PATRICIA M.
M CCARTHY; BRIAN D. G RIFFIN , JONATHAN K RISCH , Office of
Case: 23-2363 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

DAVIS v. COLLINS 2
General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
Judges.
PER C URIAM.
Stanley L. Davis appeals from a decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”).
His appeal challenges the Veterans Court’s determination
that, for purposes of adjudicating Mr. Davis’s claim, the
Department of Veterans Affairs did not constructively pos-
sess the evidence at issue. See Davis v. McDonough,
36 Vet. App. 142, 149–53 (2023). Mr. Davis’s challenge is
to the application of law to fact—specifically, the applica-
tion of the constructive-possession standard as articulated
in, for example, Euzebio v. McDonough, 989 F.3d 1305
(Fed. Cir. 2021), to the facts of this particular case. Be-
cause, in appeals from Veterans Court decisions, this court
generally “may not review” “a challenge to a law . . . as ap-
plied to the facts of a particular case,” 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(d)(2), we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-2363 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2025

-- 2 of 2 --