Clark v. Collins

Case: 25-1594 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 07/16/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

EULA CLARK, SUBSTITUTED FOR JOHNNIE H.

CLARK, Claimant-Appellant v.

DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2025-1594 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 24-2150, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr.

______________________ Decided: July 16, 2026 ______________________

J. BRYAN JONES, III, J B Jones III LLC, Lafayette, LA, argued for claimant-appellant.

CATHERINE M. YANG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre- sented by ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, ANDREW J. STEINBERG, Office 2 CLARK v. COLLINS of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________

Before CHEN, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. CHEN, Circuit Judge.

Ms. Eula Clark, widow of Navy veteran Mr. Johnnie H. Clark, appeals a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denial of an earlier ef- fective date for residuals of a head injury. Clark v. Collins, No. 24-2150, 2025 WL 448797, at *1 (Vet. App. Feb. 10, 2025) (Decision). Because the Veterans Court’s decision was an application of law to fact, we must dismiss.

BACKGROUND

In April 2007, Mr. Clark filed for a pension and service connection compensation for several conditions, including residuals of a head injury. Id. A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office denied the pension claim in a letter, noting Mr. Clark’s income exceeded the maximum annual disability pension limit. Id. The letter included a ratings decision which further denied each of Mr. Clark’s service connection compensation claims for lack of service connection. Id.

In January 2008, Mr. Clark sent a response to the VA noting that its decision letter “denied [him] of [his disabil- ity] claim for pension benefits.” J.A. 87. He further stated that he wanted “to appeal to the Board for a review of [his] claim for pension benefits.” Id. He indicated that he had “many other health related problems . . . that happened while enlisted in the Navy.” Id. The VA construed this letter as a notice of disagreement (NOD) for his pension claim. See Decision, 2025 WL 448797, at *1. Mr. Clark failed to perfect the appeal, and each of the VA’s denials became final.

CLARK v. COLLINS 3

In December 2017, Mr. Clark, through counsel, filed a new claim for service connection for a head injury. Id. The Board eventually granted the head injury claim with an ef- fective date of December 11, 2017. Id. Mr. Clark appealed, seeking an earlier effective date based on his January 2008 letter.

The Board determined that the January 2008 letter sent by Mr. Clark was solely an NOD for denial of his pen- sion claim. Thus, when Mr. Clark failed to file an NOD for the VA’s denial of service connection compensation for his head injury claim, the decision became final. The Board concluded that because his December 2017 application re- opened his service connection claim for head injury, the earliest date to which Mr. Clark was entitled was in 2017. The Veterans Court affirmed, finding that the Board, in evaluating Mr. Clark’s NOD, had properly applied the re- quirements of 38 C.F.R. § 20.201 (2008) under either a de novo or clear error standard. Id. at *1–2. Mr. Clark ap- pealed.

While this appeal was pending, Mr. Clark passed away and was substituted for his widow, Ms. Clark. See ECF No. 30.

DISCUSSION

This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions by the Vet- erans Court is limited by statute. Sickels v. Shinseki, 643 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Absent a constitutional issue, this court may not review the Veterans Court’s fac- tual findings or its application of law to facts.” Cash v. Col- lins, 166 F.4th 1046, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2026) (citation omitted); see 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

On appeal, Ms. Clark contends that, when viewed un- der 38 C.F.R. § 20.201, the January 2008 letter demon- strated disagreement with the Board’s denial of service connection claims, and thus the Veterans Court’s decision was in error. Appellant Br. 6–9, 11. We decline to address 4 CLARK v. COLLINS this argument as it relates to an application of law to fact, beyond this court’s jurisdiction. See Davis v. Collins, 176 F.4th 663, 668–69 (Fed. Cir. 2026) (dismissing an appeal asking this court to review the contents of an NOD).

Ms. Clark asserts that this court has jurisdiction to re- view the Veterans Court decision because “the issue in- volves whether or not the January 2008 letter served as an adequate NOD under the legacy system.” Appellant Br. 4– 5. However, we recently held in Davis v. Collins that the “Veterans Court’s interpretation [of the contents of an NOD] is beyond our purview.” 176 F.4th at 669. We have also previously stated that “the interpretation of the con- tents of a claim for benefits [is] a factual issue over which we [do] not have jurisdiction.” Ellington v. Peake, 541 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Bonner v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1323, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Ms. Clark offers no rea- son to separate this appeal from arguments we rejected in Davis, Ellington, and Bonner.

We have reviewed the remainder of Ms. Clark’s argu- ments and find them unpersuasive. Because we lack juris- diction over Ms. Clark’s claims, we dismiss.

DISMISSED COSTS

No costs.