Campbell v. Collins

Case: 25-1374 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 08/27/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

______________________

TIFFANY M. CAMPBELL,

Claimant-Appellant v.

DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2025-1374 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 23-2752, Judge Coral Wong Pi- etsch.

______________________ Decided: August 27, 2026 ______________________

KENNETH DOJAQUEZ, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka,

KS, argued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by KENNETH M. CARPENTER.

DANIEL FALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT 2 CAMPBELL v. COLLINS SHUMATE; RICHARD STEPHEN HUBER, DEREK SCADDEN, Of- fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet- erans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________

Before LOURIE, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges. CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.

Tiffany M. Campbell appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), affirming a 2023 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision. Campbell v. McDonough, No. 23-2752, 2024 WL 4552839, at *1 (Vet. App. Oct. 23, 2024) (“Deci- sion”). In its 2023 decision, the Board denied the motion to revise or reverse a May 2009 disability rating decision on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”). J.A. 81, 91. Because we lack jurisdiction over Ms. Campbell’s ap- peal, we dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

From January 2006 to January 2009, Ms. Campbell served on active duty in the United States Army. Decision at *1. Ms. Campbell filed a claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and other condi- tions in February 2009. Id. In May 2009, the regional of- fice (“RO”) assigned Ms. Campbell a 70% disability rating for PTSD. Id.

In September 2016, Ms. Campbell filed a formal claim for total disability based on individual unemployability (“TDIU”), which was granted in November 2016 with an effective date of September 2016. Id. In July 2019, Ms. Campbell moved to revise the May 2009 rating deci- sion, arguing that the decision contained CUE because her request for service-connected disability based on PTSD coupled with evidence of unemployability presented an in- formal claim for TDIU that the RO failed to adjudicate. Id.; CAMPBELL v. COLLINS 3 J.A. 85. The RO found no CUE in the May 2009 rating de- cision, and Ms. Campbell appealed that decision to the Board. Decision at *1.

In November 2020, the Board denied Ms. Campbell an effective date earlier than September 2016 for entitlement to TDIU based on no CUE in the May 2009 rating decision. J.A. 55–62; Decision at *1. Ms. Campbell appealed that Board decision to the Veterans Court. Decision at *2; Campbell v. McDonough, No. 21-1644, 2022 WL 2064003, at *1 (Vet. App. June 8, 2022) (“2022 Decision”). The Vet- erans Court concluded that although “the Board noted Ms. Campbell’s arguments,” the Board “never fully ad- dressed them.” 2022 Decision at *3. The Veterans Court further determined that the Board failed to discuss Ms. Campbell’s service-connected conditions and errone- ously required Ms. Campbell to show she was entitled to TDIU in 2009 rather than that she had raised a claim for TDIU in 2009. Id. Accordingly, the Veterans Court va- cated the Board’s 2020 decision and remanded “for the Board to address whether the evidence in 2009 showed un- employability to raise a claim for TDIU.” Id.

In January 2023, the Board determined that Ms. Campbell “did not reasonably raise the issue of entitle- ment to TDIU” in 2009. J.A. 89. The Board concluded that, “reasonable minds could have differed as to whether the Veteran submitted evidence of unemployability, and this is not tantamount to CUE.” J.A. 90.

Ms. Campbell appealed the 2023 Board decision to the Veterans Court, arguing that the Board improperly “ap- plied Roberson [v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001)]” and the Board should “have found CUE in the May 2009 decision.” Decision at *1, *3. The Veterans Court af- firmed the Board’s 2023 decision. Id. at *4. Ms. Campbell timely appealed.

4 CAMPBELL v. COLLINS

II. DISCUSSION

“This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions by the Vet- erans Court is limited.” Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We review a decision “with re- spect to the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any in- terpretation thereof . . . that was relied on by the [Veter- ans] Court in making the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); Smith v. Collins, 130 F.4th 1337, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2025). However, except with respect to constitutional issues, we “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.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). “[W]hile we can review questions of law, we cannot review applica- tions of law to fact.” Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

In this case, we lack jurisdiction because Ms. Campbell requests that we review the application of law to fact. Ms. Campbell argues that the Veterans Court “failed to correctly apply the rule of law created by this Court in Rob- erson” when it affirmed the Board’s decision that there was no CUE in the VA’s May 2009 rating decision. Appellant’s Br. 1, 5–10; Decision at *1, *4. Ms. Campbell contends that we have jurisdiction because her appeal concerns whether the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s use of an incorrect legal standard. Appellant’s Br. 7–10. We disagree. As both counsel for Ms. Campbell and the government agreed at oral argument, we lack jurisdiction if the case is properly characterized as a dispute over how Roberson was applied, rather than whether Roberson was applied. Oral Arg. 07:20–07:56, 14:40–15:40, https://www.cafc.uscour ts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1374_06032026.mp3.

We lack jurisdiction over Ms. Campbell’s appeal be- cause the Board and Veterans Court applied Roberson. “All Roberson requires is that the VA give a sympathetic reading to the veteran’s filings to determine all claims for CAMPBELL v. COLLINS 5 recovery supported by a liberal construction of those alle- gations.” Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, the Veterans Court noted that “[t]he Board acknowledged the requirements of Rob- erson” as well as the Veterans Court’s remand to the Board to determine whether the 2009 evidence showed unemploy- ability such that a TDIU claim was reasonably raised. De- cision at *4. The Veterans Court recognized that the Board reviewed the record evidence relating to Ms. Campbell’s job search and the symptoms of her service-connected disabil- ity. Id. We do not have jurisdiction to reassess the appli- cation of Roberson to the facts of Ms. Campbell’s claim.

III. CONCLUSION

We have considered Ms. Campbell’s remaining argu- ments and find that none of the arguments raises a non- frivolous issue over which we can assert jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss.

DISMISSED COSTS

No costs.