Paul E. Robinson v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PAUL E. ROBINSON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1721
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-3751, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: December 2, 2025
______________________
P AUL E. ROBINSON, Milwaukee, WI, pro se.
CATHERINE M. YANG, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by ERIC P. BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
BRETT SHUMATE; C ARLING K AY B ENNETT , BRIAN D.
G RIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States De-
partment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 25-1721 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 12/02/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

ROBINSON v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before D YK, P ROST , and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Paul Robinson appeals a decision of the Court of Ap-
peals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a
denial by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) of his
claim to an earlier effective date for his total disability
(“TDIU”) rating. Because Mr. Robinson only raises issues
that are beyond our jurisdiction to review, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Robinson served in the U.S. Army National
Guard as a patient-care specialist and medical specialist
from December 1976 to April 1977 and from May 1978 to
August 1979. In February 2000, he claimed a service-
connected acquired psychiatric disorder. Mr. Robinson
supported the claim with a private psychiatrist’s note
indicating a diagnosis of major depressive disorder
(“MDD”) and post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). A
regional office denied service connection in August 2000
On February 11, 2008, Mr. Robinson filed a claim for
MDD, and on February 3, 2009, he applied for a TDIU
rating. A regional office issued a rating decision on Au-
gust 13, 2009, finding service-connected MDD rated at
50% effective February 11, 2008, which combined with
partial ratings for other service-connected disabilities to
put Mr. Robinson above the 70% schedular criterion for
TDIU. The regional office found that Mr. Robinson be-
came qualified for TDIU on February 11, 2008, with
benefits beginning on July 1, 2008 (being briefly delayed
because of the receipt of benefits under another tempo-
rary 100% rating).
A series of overlapping proceedings and Veterans
Court appeals followed. Relevant to the appeal before us,
Mr. Robinson sought an earlier effective date for his MDD
Case: 25-1721 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 12/02/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

ROBINSON v. COLLINS 3
rating of February 28, 2000, which the Board granted
upon finding a clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”).
The Veterans Court remanded the case for the Board to
consider whether Mr. Robinson’s TDIU rating, as an issue
“inextricably intertwined” with the MDD rating, ought to
be similarly dated 2000. S. App’x 5.1 On February 27,
2023, the Board concluded that Mr. Robinson was not
entitled to a TDIU effective date earlier than July 1, 2008.
The Board found that Mr. Robinson met the schedular
criteria for unemployability as of the earlier date but that
“his nonservice-connected back condition is the reason
why he [was] unemployable, prior to July 1, 2008.” S.
App’x 16, 19. Mr. Robinson appealed to the Veterans
Court, and on December 23, 2024, the Veterans Court
affirmed. Mr. Robinson then timely appealed to this
court.
D ISCUSSION
We have jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veter-
ans Court only with respect to a question of “a rule of law
or of any statute or regulation” or “any interpretation
thereof (other than a determination as to a factual mat-
ter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making
the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Without an underly-
ing constitutional issue, this Court may not review the
Veterans Court’s factual determinations or its application
of law to facts. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2010); Reizenstein v. Shinseki, 583 F.3d 1331,
1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In his informal brief, Mr. Robinson asserts several er-
rors by the Veterans Court.
1 “S. App’x” refers to the Supplemental Appendix
submitted by the Secretary. Dkt. No. 16.
Case: 25-1721 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 12/02/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

ROBINSON v. COLLINS 4
First, Mr. Robinson argues that the Veterans Court
earlier required the Board to apply Ray v. Wilkie, a Vet-
erans Court case requiring the Board to define the contex-
tually dependent term “substantially gainful occupation”
in terms of both economic and noneconomic circumstances
surrounding a veteran when considering a veteran’s TDIU
rating. Addendum to Appellant’s Informal Br. 1; see also
Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58, 73 (2019); 38 C.F.R. § 4.16
(defining the standard for TDIU including inability “to
secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a
result of service-connected disabilities”). He argues that
the most recent decision of the Veterans Court did not
require the Board to comply with its earlier ruling on
considering his economic and noneconomic evidence when
applying Ray. At bottom, this is an argument that the
Veterans Court misapplied the law to his facts. But an
alleged misapplication of law to facts is not within our
jurisdiction.
Second, Mr. Robinson appears to contend that the
finding of clear and unmistakable error that resulted in
the Board’s grant of a February 2000 effective date for
MDD should apply equally to his TDIU claim. He notes
that the psychiatrist’s diagnosis of MDD supporting his
2000 effective-date claim was accompanied by a diagnosis
of PTSD. He alleges that the Board wrongly disregarded
the impact of PTSD and incorrectly treated the TDIU as a
standalone claim independent of the MDD claim. But the
import of the PTSD evidence and the relationship of MDD
with the TDIU question—including whether
Mr. Robinson’s MDD was the cause of his unemployabil-
ity—are factual matters that we lack jurisdiction to
review.
Finally, Mr. Robinson alleges “Violations of Constitu-
tional rights and Due process.” Addendum to Appellant’s
Informal Br. 5. However, his arguments are directed to
the difficulties of proceeding pro se, the lack of qualifica-
tions of witnesses and officials, and an alleged abuse of
Case: 25-1721 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 12/02/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

ROBINSON v. COLLINS 5
power on the part of the Veterans Administration. These
are not colorable constitutional issues. An appellant’s
characterization of a question “as constitutional in nature
does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise
lack.” Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
1999).
Because we do not have jurisdiction over any of the is-
sues Mr. Robinson raises in this appeal, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1721 Document: 22 Page: 5 Filed: 12/02/2025

-- 5 of 5 --