Jeffrey A. Moore v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JEFFREY A. MOORE,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1939
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 24-2507, Judge Coral Wong Pi-
etsch.
______________________
Decided: February 9, 2026
______________________
JEFFREY A. MOORE, Algona, IA, pro se.
LAUREL DON HAVENS, III, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,
BRETT SHUMATE; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, DAVID HARMANTAS,
Office of General Counsel, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 25-1939 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

MOORE v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before REYNA, SCHALL, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION
Jeffrey A. Moore appeals the May 22, 2025 memoran-
dum decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Vet-
erans Claims (“Veterans Court”) in Moore v. Collins, No.
24-2507, S. App. 1.1 In that decision, the Veterans Court
affirmed the March 29, 2024 order of the Board of Veterans’
Appeals (“Board”) that denied Mr. Moore’s claims for De-
partment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) disability benefits and
total disability based on individual unemployability
(“TDIU”). S. App. 12. For the reasons set forth below, we
dismiss Mr. Moore’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
I
Mr. Moore honorably served in the United States Army
from June 1978 to December 1981. S. App. 1. In January
2018, he was diagnosed with “bilateral hip degenerative
changes.” S. App. 2. Thereafter he filed with the VA claims
for disability benefits and TDIU for bilateral hip arthritis
and right hip osteonecrosis. Id. A VA Regional Office de-
nied the claims after determining that the evidence did not
show that Mr. Moore’s disabilities occurred during, or were
aggravated by, his military service. Id.; see 38 U.S.C.
§§ 1110, 1131; Simmons v. Wilkie, 964 F.3d 1381, 1383
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“To establish a right to disability benefits,
a veteran must show: ‘(1) the existence of a present disabil-
ity; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or
injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present
1 “S. App.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix at-
tached to Appellee’s Informal Brief.
Case: 25-1939 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

MOORE v. COLLINS 3
disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated
during service.’” (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d
1163, 1166–67 (Fed. Cir. 2004))).
Mr. Moore appealed to the Board. Eventually, follow-
ing a remand for the VA to obtain additional records and
provide Mr. Moore with a medical examination, the Board,
in its March 2024 decision, denied Mr. Moore’s claims. In
its decision, the Board determined that there was no evi-
dence showing a nexus between Mr. Moore’s service in the
Army and his current disability. S. App. 17–18. In its May
2025 decision, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s de-
cision. S. App. 11. This appeal followed.
II
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited by statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We have
jurisdiction to decide an appeal insofar as it presents a
challenge to a Veterans Court’s decision regarding a rule of
law, including a decision about the interpretation or valid-
ity of any statute or regulation. Id. § 7292(a), (d)(1). How-
ever, we lack jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a
factual determination or a challenge to the application of a
law or regulation to the facts of a particular case, unless
the appeal presents a constitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2).
III
On appeal Mr. Moore does not argue that the Veterans
Court misinterpreted a statute or regulation. Appellant’s
Opening Br. 1. Neither does he raise a constitutional issue.
Id. at 2. Rather, he contends that, contrary to the findings
of the VA, the evidence in fact shows a nexus between his
service and his hip condition. Appellant’s Reply Br. 4–6.2
In other words, Mr. Moore challenges the factual
2 Our citation to Mr. Moore’s brief refers to the page
numbers generated by this court’s CM/ECF system.
Case: 25-1939 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

MOORE v. COLLINS 4
determinations underlying the denial of his claims.
Clearly, this is an argument outside the scope of our juris-
diction. We thus must dismiss his appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Mr. Moore’s ap-
peal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1939 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 4 of 4 --