Court Without Jurisdiction to Consider Veteran's Factual Allegations

background violation of a statutory right; or (d) without observance of 29, 2009). because mr. panton appeals factual determi- tion claim with the department of veterans affairs ("va") his claim in december 2003 to seek an increased evalua- non-compensable, and denied service connection for right severe hearing loss of the sensorineural type, probably claim. id. at *3. considered a letter from mr. panton's doctor who opined decided: june 11, 2010 claimant-appellant, see 38 u.s.c. � 7292(d)(2). we have jurisdiction over only alleging that the failure to grant service connection for nations not within our jurisdiction, we dismiss. in january 2005, mr. panton requested reconsidera- that mr. panton suffered from substantial left ear hearing tion branch, civil division, united states department of tinnitus. in august 2004, the ro granted service connec- ear hearing loss in the february 1999 rating decision was court is limited by statute. forshey v. principi, 284 f.3d appeal from the united states court of appeals for united states court of appeals for veterans claims tion of the effective date for his service-connected tinnitus, id. accordingly, the veterans court affirmed the board's the veterans court and instead "base [our] findings on ans court held that the board should not have treated panton's claim for tinnitus in the february 1999 decision. corinne a. niosi, trial attorney, commercial litiga- adjudicated the claim. id. at *2-3. the veterans court in february 1999, the regional office ("ro") granted these are excluded from the scope of this court's review. erans court. see panton v. shinseki, no. 07-2296, 2009 of veterans affairs, of washington, dc. ear hearing loss. the ro noted that mr. panton had before newman, gajarsa, and linn, circuit judges. ing. however, the ro continued denial of his claim. panton v. dva5 diagnosed mr. panton as having "left-sided moderately eric k. shinseki, secretary of veterans right, power, privilege, or immunity; (c) in excess of for "hearing damage due to heavy equipment operation" ______________________ diction to review them, his appeal is claim in 1998, but that the ro formally ruled upon only no costs. __________________________ loss was "evident the day [he] was discharged" from dismissed nation in january 1999, mr. panton complained of "occa- eral counsel, and kristiana m. brugger, attorney, reported during his audiology examination that tinnitus reported buzzing in both ears since his military days, but mr. panton requests that we "throw out the decision" of gary panton appeals from a final judgment of the garding his hearing loss. although mr. panton alleges the hearing loss claim in 1999. id. at *3. applying the questions regarding the time when a disease or condi- tive date for his service-connected tinnitus. see panton v. gary panton, of south dakota, pro se. procedure required by law." 38 u.s.c. � 7292(d)(1). united states court of appeals mr. panton appealed the board's decision to the vet- statute, or regulation upon which the veterans court those questions involving the validity of a rule of law, found that mr. panton reasonably raised a tinnitus claim symptoms in the february 1999 decision "provided ade- lance, sr. 457 f.3d 1258, 1261 (2006) and applied in ingram v. service connection for left ear hearing loss, but rated it as challenges only factual determinations and we lack juris- ney general, jeanne e. davidson, director, and martin that claim was not cue. ______________________ connected "hearing loss . . . in both ears," that his hearing tinnitus issue. in october 2005, mr. panton filed a nod claim for service connection for tinnitus and that denial of __________________________ both ears." he also reported that "tinnitus is not a prob- discussion time, are questions of fact. conley v. peake, 543 f.3d mr. panton served in the military from july 7, 1982 to in november 1999, mr. panton filed a notice of dis- note: this disposition is nonprecedential. they "ignored the facts" regarding his hearing loss. __________________________ per curiam. sional buzzing since his military days in the 1980's [in] tinnitus" is "not out of the ordinary." the examiner related to his noise exposure from military [service] and statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or in wl 5125124 (vet. app. dec. 29, 2009). first, the veter- lem area for him" and that "his occasional short term f. hockey, jr., assistant director. of counsel on the panton v. dva 4 the veterans court considered whether mr. panton's implicit denial rule enumerated in deshotel v. nicholson, gary panton, as a "direct appeal from the assigned effective date for the decide "all relevant questions of law" and must set aside during his military service. during an audiology exami- afterwards." allegations of error are limited solely to factual issues. service connection for right ear hearing loss, but he did tion became evident, and whether it has worsened over interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a decision, holding that the ro had implicitly denied mr. service, and that his hearing loss has worsened over time. justice, of washington, dc, for respondent-appellee. relied in making its decision. see id. because mr. panton factual matter) that was relied on by the [veterans court] on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any not in accordance with law; (b) contrary to constitutional 2004, mr. panton added a claim for service connection for not file a timely substantive appeal in response to the that the veterans court's decision involves the validity or we may not review "(a) a challenge to a factual determina- service-connected tinnitus. the board determined that agreement ("nod") with regard to the ro's denial of was not a problem area for him. in may 1999, the ro affairs and unmistakable error ("cue"). in january 2005, the tion, or (b) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise loss that was not compensated by normal right ear hear- understood that his tinnitus claim had been adjudicated." mr. panton's appeal as an allegation of cue, but rather medical-general accepted evidence only." tion for his service-connected left ear hearing loss and quate recognition so that the appellant should have on appeal, mr. panton raises only factual issues re- november 1998 claim reasonably raised the tinnitus determination as to a factual matter" that we find "(a) __________________________ tinnitus in the february 1999 decision constituted clear for the federal circuit in his november 1998 application and therefore inquired review the "validity of a decision of the [veterans court] ("veterans court") denying his claim to an earlier effec- shinseki, no. 07-2296, 2009 wl 5125124 (vet. app. dec. into whether the february 1999 ro decision resolved that not cue. the january 2005 decision did not discuss the june 28, 1983. in november 1998, he filed a compensa- appellant's service-connected tinnitus." id. at *2. next, for example, mr. panton argues that he has service- id. this appeal followed. the facts of a particular case." 38 u.s.c. � 7292(d)(2). v. claim, and if so, whether the february 1999 ro decision in making the decision." 38 u.s.c. � 7292(a). we must statement of the case. mr. panton then sought to reopen court concluded that the ro's discussion of the tinnitus with her on the brief were tony west, assistant attor- veterans claims in case no. 07-2296, judge alan g. 1, 2004, but continued denial of the other claims. 1335, 1338 (fed. cir. 2002). we have jurisdiction to panton v. dva3 any regulation or interpretation thereof "other than a except for an appeal that presents a constitutional issue, 1301, 1305 (fed. cir. 2008). factual questions such as interpretation of a statute or regulation, mr. panton's the february 1999 decision implicitly denied mr. panton's brief were michael j. timinski, deputy assistant gen- mr. panton alleges that the va committed error because service connection for right ear hearing loss. in february panton had submitted both a tinnitus and hearing loss our jurisdiction to review decisions of the veterans ro found that the denial of service connection for right office of the general counsel, united states department ultimately, the veterans court determined that mr. panton v. dva 6 2010-7056 clarifying that he was seeking an earlier effective date for tion for tinnitus, rated as 10% disabling, effective march nicholson, 21 vet. app. 232, 243 (2007), the veterans respondent-appellee. panton v. dva 2