Linda Lock, Substituted for Reginald L. Lock, Sr. v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LINDA LOCK, SUBSTITUTED FOR REGINALD L.
LOCK, SR.,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-2142
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-1858, Chief Judge Michael P.
Allen.
______________________
Decided: November 18, 2025
______________________
L INDA L OCK, Little Rock, AR, pro se.
MEREDYTH C OHEN HAVASY , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by WILLIAM J AMES G RIMALDI, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY , YAAKOV ROTH ; CARLING K AY BENNETT , BRIAN
Case: 24-2142 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 11/18/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

LOCK v. COLLINS 2
D. G RIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States De-
partment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before D YK, L INN, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Reginald L. Lock, Sr., an Army veteran and the origi-
nal appellant in this case, was denied service-connected
benefits. He appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals,
which held Mr. Lock failed to establish that his disabilities
were service connected. The United States Court of Ap-
peals for Veterans Claims affirmed, and Mr. Lock appealed
to this court. Mr. Lock died while his appeal was pending,
and his surviving spouse, Linda Lock was substituted as
appellant. Mrs. Lock asks us to review her husband’s med-
ical records and reconsider whether his disabilities are ser-
vice connected. Because Mrs. Lock challenges only factual
findings and the application of law to fact, we dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction.
I
Mr. Lock served honorably in the U.S. Army from
July 1975 to September 1975. Although his military medi-
cal entrance exam was negative for any pertinent disabili-
ties that would exclude him from service, he was ultimately
separated from service for pre-existing sickle cell disease.
He subsequently sought a service connection for his sickle
cell disease and later-developed complications.
Beginning in 1976, the regional office and the Board
have denied Mr. Lock’s claims. They have repeatedly con-
cluded his sickle cell disease predated his service and was
not aggravated by his service beyond the normal progres-
sion of the disease. And without a service connection for his
sickle cell disease, his claims for conditions secondary to
his sickle cell disease were also denied.
Case: 24-2142 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 11/18/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

LOCK v. COLLINS 3
Relevant here, the Board again denied entitlement to a
service connection for Mr. Lock’s sickle cell disease in Jan-
uary 2023 after previously remanding for further medical
evaluation. Mr. Lock, who was represented by counsel be-
fore the Veterans Court, appealed arguing that the Board
failed to comply with a prior joint motion for remand (JMR)
and that it relied on inadequate medical examinations. The
Veterans Court reviewed the Board’s decision, concluded
the Board had complied with the JMR and appropriately
considered adequate medical opinions, and affirmed.
S.A. 4–9.1
Mr. Lock timely appealed to this court.
II
Our jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans
Court is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2010). We have exclusive jurisdiction to review
and decide challenges to the validity or interpretation of
any statute or regulation, and to interpret constitutional
and statutory provisions if presented and necessary to the
decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). But absent a legitimate con-
stitutional issue, we cannot review challenges to the Veter-
ans Court’s factual determinations or its application of law
to fact. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); see also Wanless, 618 F.3d
at 1336.
On appeal, Mrs. Lock raises only factual issues that are
outside our jurisdiction. She does argue the Veterans
Court’s decision involves the validity or interpretation of a
statute or regulation and constitutional issues. See Appel-
lant’s Br. 1–2 (checking “Yes” for items 2 and 3). But we
look to the substance of the issue presented rather than a
party’s characterization of the question when evaluating
our jurisdiction. See Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335
1 S.A. refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed by
the government. Dkt. No. 18.
Case: 24-2142 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 11/18/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

LOCK v. COLLINS 4
(Fed. Cir. 1999). And Mrs. Lock’s allegations of error here
are limited solely to factual issues. For example, Mrs. Lock
argues basic training caused Mr. Lock’s condition to
worsen, that his medical records show sickle cell disease as
his reason for discharge, and that his sickle cell disease is
service connected. Appellant’s Br. 1–2. Mrs. Lock requests
we re-review Mr. Lock’s medical records and reconsider his
denial of a service connection. Appellant’s Br. 2. This ech-
oes Mr. Lock’s request to this court. See A.A. 4 (“I ask you
judges to review my medical records and reconsider their
original decision.”).2 Mrs. Lock does not contend the Veter-
ans Court articulated an incorrect legal standard or inter-
preted any statute. Rather, her argument is that the Board
and Veterans Court erred when they determined
Mr. Lock’s sickle cell disease was not service connected. We
may not review that determination: We lack jurisdiction to
reweigh the evidence of Mr. Lock’s disabilities and whether
they are service connected. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2);
Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(“The weighing of this evidence is not within our appellate
jurisdiction.”). And because we lack jurisdiction to review
Mrs. Lock’s factual challenges, we must dismiss
Mrs. Lock’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
III
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
2 A.A. refers to the materials attached to Mrs. Lock’s
informal brief. Dkt. No. 19.
Case: 24-2142 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 11/18/2025

-- 4 of 4 --