Eula Clark, Substituted for Johnnie H. Clark v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 J ONES , 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, P ATRICIA M. M C CARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE; BRIAN D. G RIFFIN, A NDREW J. STEINBERG, Office
Case: 25-1594 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 07/16/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

CLARK v. COLLINS 2
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.
Case: 25-1594 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 07/16/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

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.
D ISCUSSION
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
Case: 25-1594 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 07/16/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

CLARK v. COLLINS 4
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.
Case: 25-1594 Document: 40 Page: 4 Filed: 07/16/2026

-- 4 of 4 --