Philip J. Seiflein v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PHILIP J. SEIFLEIN,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1090
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 21-6767, Senior Judge William P.
Greene, Jr.
______________________
Decided: August 8, 2025
______________________
PHILIP J. SEIFLEIN, Ventura, CA, pro se.
TANYA KOENIG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, YAAKOV
ROTH; DEREK SCADDEN, ANDREW J. STEINBERG, Office of
General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 24-1090 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 08/08/2025

-- 1 of 6 --

SEIFLEIN v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before REYNA, STOLL, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Philip J. Seiflein appeals a decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
Court”), which affirmed a Board of Veterans’ Appeals’
(“Board”) decision dismissing Mr. Seiflein’s 2016 motion for
revision. Seiflein v. McDonough, No. 21-6767, 2023 WL
6169073, at *1 (Vet. App. Sept. 22, 2023) (“Decision”), ap-
peal dismissed, No. 24-1090, 2024 WL 49826 (Fed. Cir.
Jan. 4, 2024), opinion vacated, appeal reinstated, No. 24-
1090, 2024 WL 4820473 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2024). For the
reasons discussed below, we dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Seiflein served in the U.S. Air Force for 29 days
from November 6 to December 4, 1968. Decision at *1;
S. App’x 29.1 In December 1968, Mr. Seiflein sought De-
partment of Veterans Affairs’ (“VA”) benefits, and the Re-
gional Office (“RO”) denied his application in 1969.
Decision at *1; S. App’x 29.
On January 30, 1995, Mr. Seiflein again applied for VA
benefits, and the VA awarded him service connection for a
psychiatric disability effective on that date. Decision at *1;
S. App’x 36. Mr. Seiflein subsequently filed a Notice of Dis-
agreement seeking an earlier effective date and eventually
appealed to the Board. Decision at *1; S. App’x 30.
In November 2009, the Board denied Mr. Seiflein’s
claim for an earlier effective date for his service-connected
psychiatric disability. Decision at *1; S. App’x 30. In light
1 We refer to the supplemental appendix filed with
the government’s informal response brief, ECF No. 38, as
“S. App’x” throughout this opinion.
Case: 24-1090 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 08/08/2025

-- 2 of 6 --

SEIFLEIN v. COLLINS 3
of that denial, Mr. Seiflein appealed to the Veterans Court,
which affirmed the Board’s decision on September 30,
2011. Decision at *1; S. App’x 33.
Mr. Seiflein subsequently filed a motion for revision in
late 2016, arguing that the November 2009 Board decision
contained clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in denying
his entitlement to an earlier effective date before Janu-
ary 30, 1995. Decision at *1; S. App’x 15.
In October 2021, the Board dismissed Mr. Seiflein’s
2016 motion for revision and determined that “the Novem-
ber 2009 Board decision concerning entitlement to an ear-
lier effective date was appealed to and affirmed by the
[Veterans] Court in September 2011.” S. App’x 15; Deci-
sion at *1. Consequently, the Board concluded that “the
November 2009 Board decision was subsumed by the [Vet-
erans] Court’s September 2011” decision and was “not ca-
pable of revision on the basis of CUE.” S. App’x 15–16;
Decision at *1. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s
decision, concluding that “[t]he Board correctly determined
that the September 2011 [Veterans] Court decision sub-
sumed the November 2009 Board decision on this issue;
therefore the November 2009 decision is no longer subject
to revision on this issue.” Decision at *2.
Mr. Seiflein timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
“This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions by the Vet-
erans Court is limited.” Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d
1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We “have exclusive jurisdic-
tion to review and decide any challenge to the validity of
any statute or regulation or any interpretation
thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory
provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a deci-
sion.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). However, absent a constitu-
tional issue, we lack jurisdiction to “review (A) a challenge
to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or
Case: 24-1090 Document: 48 Page: 3 Filed: 08/08/2025

-- 3 of 6 --

SEIFLEIN v. COLLINS 4
regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id.
§ 7292(d)(2).
Mr. Seiflein argues that “[t]his case involves a series of
procedural, medical, and administrative errors” that “jus-
tify a thorough de novo review of [his] case.” Appellant’s
Br. 17–18.2 Specifically, Mr. Seiflein argues that the VA
failed to medically diagnose, treat, and assist him, failed to
review existing or new evidence, and misapplied the law.
Id. The government responds that Mr. Seiflein fails to
raise any issues that fall within this court’s jurisdiction.
Appellee’s Br. 7–12. We agree with the government.
We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Seiflein’s appeal because
Mr. Seiflein does not allege that the Veterans Court misin-
terpreted any statute or regulation. On appeal,
Mr. Seiflein attempts to re-argue his underlying claim that
there is CUE in the November 2009 Board decision but
fails to point to any legal errors with respect to the relevant
decision by the Veterans Court. See Appellant’s Br. 6–18.
His attempted re-argument amounts to “disagreements
with how the facts were weighed or how the law was ap-
plied to the facts in this particular case, which we do not
have jurisdiction to review.” Guillory v. Shinseki, 669 F.3d
1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2012); 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). As
Mr. Seiflein fails to allege any issues of statutory or regu-
latory interpretation, we lack jurisdiction over his appeal.
Mr. Seiflein also argues that he was denied “the right
to be heard, and a fair trial, with all of the evidence,” Ap-
pellant’s Br. 5 (emphasis in original), and that “VA law re-
quir[es] a sympathetic view to all veterans,” and especially
“towards . . . mentally afflicted veteran[s].” Id. (cleaned
up); see also Appellant’s Reply Br. 2 (arguing that veterans
suffering from mental afflictions are “left without adequate
representation or due process safeguards.” (emphasis
2 We cite to the ECF page numbers.
Case: 24-1090 Document: 48 Page: 4 Filed: 08/08/2025

-- 4 of 6 --

SEIFLEIN v. COLLINS 5
omitted)). The government responds that “the Veterans
Court did not decide any constitutional issues.” Appellee’s
Br. 11. We agree with the government.
Despite Mr. Seiflein’s arguments otherwise, the Veter-
ans Court’s decision does not address constitutional issues,
as it merely rests on the application of settled law. See
Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[An
appellant’s] characterization of [a] question as constitu-
tional in nature does not confer upon us jurisdiction that
we otherwise lack.”). Therefore, Mr. Seiflein’s alleged con-
stitutional challenge does not change the fact that we lack
jurisdiction over his appeal.3
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Seiflein’s remaining argu-
ments and find that none of the arguments raises a non-
frivolous issue over which we can assert jurisdiction.4 For
the foregoing reasons, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
3 Mr. Seiflein raises several other arguments includ-
ing that the VA had “constructive possession of favorable
evidence, lost and unanswered claims, [and] fail[ed] to
waive CUE standards when requested.” Appellant’s
Br. 11. Mr. Seiflein’s remaining arguments are directed to
questions of fact or the application of law to fact, which we
do not have jurisdiction to review. Guillory, 669 F.3d
at 1320; 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
4 Mr. Seiflein filed a “petition for writ of protection.”
See ECF No. 45. Subsequently, Mr. Seiflein moved to with-
draw the petition for writ of protection and asks this court
to “take judicial notice of the circumstances surrounding
the filing of the [w]rit of [p]rotection and all supporting ev-
idence.” ECF No. 46 at 2. Upon consideration, the motion
at ECF No. 46 is granted with respect to withdrawal of the
petition for writ of protection and is otherwise denied.
Case: 24-1090 Document: 48 Page: 5 Filed: 08/08/2025

-- 5 of 6 --

SEIFLEIN v. COLLINS 6
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1090 Document: 48 Page: 6 Filed: 08/08/2025

-- 6 of 6 --