James E. Lownsdale v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JAMES E. LOWNSDALE,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1919
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-1455, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith.
______________________
Decided: February 19, 2025
______________________
J AMES E. L OWNSDALE, Saint Louis, MO, argued pro se.
MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA
M. MCCARTHY .
______________________
Case: 24-1919 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 02/19/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

LOWNSDALE v. COLLINS 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, HUGHES and C UNNINGHAM ,
Circuit Judges.
HUGHES , Circuit Judge.
James E. Lownsdale appeals a January 25, 2024, deci-
sion by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims. Mr. Lownsdale seeks an earlier effective date for
an increased disability rating for his service-connected
right knee disability, asserting that his 1980 claim for an
increased rating remained pending until 2015. The Veter-
ans Court affirmed the Board’s decision finding Mr. Lowns-
dale was not entitled to an earlier effective date for his
right knee condition. J.A. 1–14.
On appeal, Mr. Lownsdale primarily argues that the
Veterans Court erred by affirming the Board’s determina-
tion that his 1980 claim had been finally adjudicated by a
2010 Board decision. He also argues that the Board’s deci-
sions rejecting his claims for an increased rating demon-
strate its bias toward him. Those arguments involve
challenges to factual determinations or application of law
to fact, which we lack jurisdiction to consider. See 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(d)(2) (“[T]he Court of Appeals 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.”); see also Singleton v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1332, 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“This court may not review the Veterans
Court’s factual findings or its application of law to facts ab-
sent a constitutional issue.”); Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[An appellant’s] characterization of
[a] question as constitutional in nature does not confer
upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.”). We have
considered all of the other arguments raised by Mr. Lowns-
dale and conclude that they likewise fail to raise any issue
within our limited jurisdiction. Because we lack jurisdic-
tion to review Mr. Lownsdale’s appeal, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1919 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 02/19/2025

-- 2 of 2 --