Robert L. Hunt v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

2009-7134Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit15 giu 2010

Testo completo

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________
ROBERT L. HUNT,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee.
__________________________
2009-7134
__________________________
Petition for review of the Court of Appeals for Veter-
ans Claims No. 07-2587, Judge Lawrence B. Hagel
____________________________
Decided: June 15, 2010
____________________________
VIRGINIA A. G IRARD -BRADY, ABS Legal Advocates,
P.A., of Lawrence, Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant.
SAMEER Y ERAWADEKAR , Trial Attorney, Commercial
Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depart-
ment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respon-
dent-appellee. With him on the brief were TONY WEST,
Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. D AVIDSON , Direc-
tor, and M ARTIN F. H OCKEY, Assistant Director. Of coun-

-- 1 of 2 --

HUNT v. DVA 2
sel on the brief were DAVID J. B ARRANS , Deputy Assistant
General Counsel, and DANA R AFFAELLI, Attorney, United
States Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of the
General Counsel, of Washington, DC.
__________________________
Before LOURIE, LINN , and DYK , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
Hunt appeals from the decision of the Court of Ap-
peals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming
the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the
Board”) denying entitlement to service connection for a
psychiatric disability. Hunt v. Shinseki, No. 07-2587 (Vet.
App. July 1, 2009). Hunt argues that the Veterans Court
erred in its interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) by
accepting the reasons and bases set forth by the Board for
rejecting certain evidence and by not independently
reviewing those reasons for adequacy and justification. In
effect, Hunt is asking this court to review factual deter-
minations. Such review is outside the scope of our juris-
diction. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.