Linda Kay Robison v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LINDA KAY ROBISON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1328
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-5922, Judge Coral Wong Pi-
etsch.
______________________
Decided: June 2, 2026
______________________
ROBERT C. BROWN, J R ., Tommy Klepper & Associates,
PLLC, Norman, OK, for claimant-appellant.
REBECCA T AYLOR MITCHELL , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by MARTIN F. HOCKEY , J R., P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
BRETT SHUMATE; T YRONE C OLLIER, D EREK SCADDEN, Office
Case: 25-1328 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

ROBISON v. COLLINS 2
of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before L OURIE, H UGHES , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Linda Kay Robison appeals from a decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the
Veterans Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) dismissing a claim of clear
and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in a May 1999 rating
decision that awarded non-service-connected pension
benefits to her now-deceased spouse, veteran
Gerald Glen Robison. See Robison v. McDonough, No. 23-
5922, 2024 WL 4539849 (Vet. App. Oct. 22, 2024)
(“Veterans Court Decision”); see also J.A. 5–10 (“Board
Decision”). Because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal,
we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Veteran Robison served in the United States Air Force
from January 1962 to January 1966. Veterans Court
Decision, 2024 WL 4539849, at *1. In May 1999, he was
awarded non-service-connected pension benefits. Id. He
passed away in June 2007. Id.
In August 2020, appellant Robison filed a claim
alleging CUE in the May 1999 rating decision. Id. After
the Veterans Affairs Regional Office denied her claim, she
appealed to the Board. See id.; J.A. 24–26. The Board
dismissed Robison’s claim because she was not the
claimant––i.e., veteran Robison––and so she lacked
standing to file the CUE claim. See Veterans Court
Decision, 2024 WL 4539849, at *1; Board Decision,
J.A. 7–8. Robison then appealed to the Veterans Court.
Veterans Court Decision, 2024 WL 4539849, at *1.
Case: 25-1328 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

ROBISON v. COLLINS 3
On appeal to the Veterans Court, Robison
acknowledged that, under our precedent, she did not have
standing to bring her CUE claim. Id. (first citing Haines v.
West, 154 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1998); and then citing
Crews v. McDonough, 63 F.4th 27, 41 (Fed. Cir. 2023)).
She did not identify any error in law or fact with the
Board’s decision. Id. The Veterans Court accordingly
affirmed the Board’s dismissal of her CUE claim. Id. at 2.
Robison appealed to our court.
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction to review decisions
of the Veterans Court with respect to a rule of law or
interpretation of a statute or regulation relied on by the
Veterans Court in its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a).
However, except with respect to constitutional issues, we
may not review challenges to factual determinations or
challenges to the application of a law or regulation to the
facts of a case. Id. § 7292(d)(2).
“[B]y the express terms of [38 U.S.C. § 5109A(d)], a
survivor has no standing to request review of a decision
affecting the disability benefits of a veteran on the ground
of CUE; the survivor is not the disability benefits
claimant.” Haines, 154 F.3d at 1301; see also Crews,
63 F.4th at 41 (explaining that 38 U.S.C. § 5121A, which
provides for substitution in the event of the death of a
claimant, “does not allow a survivor to bring a CUE claim
that was not previously raised”). Here, Robison concedes
that such precedent “bar[s] similarly situated widows from
presenting CUE claims.” Robison Open. Br. 4 (first citing
Haines, 154 F.3d at 1301; and then citing Crews, 63 F.4th
at 41); see also id. at 10. Given that concession, Robison is
in essence asking us to determine whether the Veterans
Court correctly applied Haines and Crews to her case. That
argument does not bring her appeal under our jurisdiction,
Case: 25-1328 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

ROBISON v. COLLINS 4
as it is a challenge to the Veterans Court’s application of
our law to the facts of Robison’s case. See 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(d)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss.1
CONCLUSION
We have considered Robison’s remaining arguments
but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
dismiss her appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
1 Even if we had jurisdiction, Robison does not argue
that her case is distinguishable from Haines and Crews.
See Robison Open. Br. 16. She asks only that the panel re-
verse that precedent but does not point us to any interven-
ing decision. Id. at 5–8. We thus cannot do so, as we are
“bound by the determinations of a prior panel, unless re-
lieved of that obligation by an en banc order of the court or
a decision of the Supreme Court.” See Deckers Corp. v.
United States, 752 F.3d 949, 959 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Case: 25-1328 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 4 of 4 --