Case Information
*2 Before G AJARSA , L INN , and M OORE , Circuit Judges . AJARSA , Circuit Judge .
Vernon Elliott, Jr., seeks review of a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) holding that a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) medical opinion he received in 2007 was adequate. See Elliott v. Shinseki , No. 08-2083 (Vet. App. Mar. 1, 2010). Because his challenge is outside the scope of our jurisdiction, we .
Our authority to review a decision of the Veterans
Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Under
section 7292(a), we may review such a decision only to the
extent that it pertains to “the validity of any statute or
regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a
determination as to a factual matter),” or “to interpret
constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent
presented and necessary to a decision.”
Id.
§§ 7292(a),
7292(c). Absent a constitutional issue, we do not have
jurisdiction to review either “a challenge to a factual
determination” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as
applied to the facts of a particular case.”
Id.
§ 7292(d)(2);
see McGee v. Peake
,
Mr. Elliott’s arguments are very similar to those pre- sented by his counsel in a case this court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, De Ramos v. Eric K. Shinseki , 358 Fed. Appx. 167 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (non-precedential). The appellant in De Ramos , like Mr. Elliott, attempted to frame the issue as the Veterans Court’s interpretation of 38 C.F.R. § 3.326 to allow VA reliance on an inadequate medical examination resulting in medical conclusions by a rating specialist. In this case, the Veterans Court did not purport to interpret 38 C.F.R. § 3.326. What Mr. Elliott characterizes as an interpretation of law is actually an unreviewable finding of fact. Cole v. Shinseki , 309 Fed. Appx. 399, 2009 WL 260776, *2 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (non-precedential) (holding that this court lacked jurisdic- tion over a challenge to adequacy of medical examiner’s opinion because it is a challenge to a factual determina- tion of the Veterans Court or, at most, the application of law to facts).
Accordingly, we Elliot’s appeal for lack of ju- risdiction.
DISMISSED
No costs.