`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`CATHY L. TOOLE,
`Claimant-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`DAVID J. SHULKIN, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
`AFFAIRS,
`Respondent-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2017-2316
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
`Veterans Claims in No. 15-4219, Senior Judge Kenneth B.
`Kramer.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: December 13, 2017
`______________________
`
`CATHY L. TOOLE, Biloxi, MS, pro se.
`
`
`
`JANA MOSES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di-
`
`vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
`DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by CHAD A.
`READLER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., CLAUDIA BURKE;
`BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, AMANDA BLACKMON, Office of General
`Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
`Washington, DC.
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
` TOOLE v. SHULKIN
`
`______________________
`
`Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
`PER CURIAM.
`Appellant Cathy L. Toole appeals an order from the
`U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
`Court”), dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See
`Toole v. Shulkin, No. 15-4219, 2017 WL 2569869, at *1
`(Vet. App. June 14, 2017). The Veterans Court found it
`lacked jurisdiction because “Mrs. Toole raises no argu-
`ments or assertions of error in the Board [of Veterans’ Ap-
`peals (‘Board’)] decision on appeal.” Id. We affirm.
`DISCUSSION
`With respect to appeals from the Veterans Court, we
`“have exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any chal-
`lenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any in-
`terpretation thereof . . . , and to interpret constitutional
`and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and nec-
`essary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c) (2012); see Good-
`man v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d 1383, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We
`review the Veterans Court’s determination of its own juris-
`diction de novo. Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed.
`Cir. 2000).
` By
`statute,
`the Veterans Court’s
`“[r]eview . . . shall be on the record of proceedings before
`the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] and the Board.” 38
`U.S.C. § 7252(b).
`The Veterans Court properly dismissed Mrs. Toole’s
`appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In 2015, the Board issued
`an opinion denying Mrs. Toole’s claim for accrued benefits
`relating to her late husband’s military service pursuant to
`38 U.S.C. § 1110. Appellee’s App. 30–31. Mrs. Toole ap-
`pealed that decision to the Veterans Court; however, her
`appeal only raised claims for dependency and indemnity
`compensation pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1318 and depend-
`ents’ educational assistance pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 3510.
`
`
`
`TOOLE v. SHULKIN
`
`3
`
`See Appellant’s Informal Br. at 1, Toole v. Shulkin, No. 15-
`4219 (Vet. App. Sept. 1, 2016); see also Appellee’s App. 9–
`23 (providing Mrs. Toole’s reply brief below). These two
`claims raised before the Veterans Court were the subject of
`a separate 2007 Board decision not presently under review.
`See Toole v. Shinseki, 364 F. App’x 627, 628 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`(dismissing appeal from the 2007 Board decision for lack of
`jurisdiction). “[W]e must look to the true nature of the ac-
`tion” to determine jurisdiction. Livingston v. Derwinski,
`959 F.2d 224, 225 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). The
`Veterans Court only had jurisdiction to review issues per-
`taining to the 2015 Board decision on appeal rather than
`the 2007 Board decision. See 38 U.S.C. § 7252(b); see also
`Ledford v. West, 136 F.3d 776, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[T]he
`[Veterans C]ourt’s jurisdiction is premised on and defined
`by the Board’s decision concerning the matter being ap-
`pealed.”). Therefore, the Veterans Court correctly deter-
`mined that it lacked jurisdiction over Mrs. Toole’s claims
`challenging the 2007 Board decision.
`Mrs. Toole’s other arguments lack merit. To the extent
`Mrs. Toole includes arguments that reference constitu-
`tional provisions, see Appellant’s Informal Br. 1; Appel-
`lant’s Suppl. Br. 1–2, we conclude these challenges are
`“constitutional in name only,” such that Mrs. Toole’s “char-
`acterization . . . does not confer upon us jurisdiction that
`we otherwise lack,” Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335
`(Fed. Cir. 1999). Additionally, we lack jurisdiction over
`Mrs. Toole’s remaining claims, such as her request for dam-
`ages. See, e.g., Appellant’s Informal Br. 2; see also Living-
`ston, 959 F.2d at 226 (“In the absence of a challenge to the
`validity of a statute or a regulation, or the interpretation of
`a constitutional or statutory provision or a regulation, we
`have no authority to consider the appeal.”).
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
` TOOLE v. SHULKIN
`
`CONCLUSION
`We have considered Mrs. Toole’s remaining arguments
`and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Order of the
`U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is
`AFFIRMED
`COSTS
`Each party shall bear its own costs.
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
