Case: 24-1919 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 02/19/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 ______________________

JAMES E. LOWNSDALE, 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, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. ______________________ Case: 24-1919 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 02/19/2025

2 LOWNSDALE v. COLLINS

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, HUGHES and CUNNINGHAM, 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.