Gabriel M. Robles v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GABRIEL M. ROBLES,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2026-1127
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 24-1231, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: May 7, 2026
______________________
G ABRIEL M. R OBLES , Topeka, KS, pro se.
I OANA C. M EYER , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
MARTIN F. HOCKEY , J R., P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE; BRIAN D. G RIFFIN, RICHARD STEPHEN HUBER , Of-
fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet-
erans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 26-1127 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 05/07/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

ROBLES v. COLLINS 2
Before L OURIE, P ROST , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Gabriel M. Robles appeals from the 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”) denying compensation
under 38 U.S.C. § 1151; a total disability rating based on
individual unemployability (“TDIU”), including
extraschedular consideration; and special monthly
compensation (“SMC”) based on the need for regular aid
and attendance for a right wrist disability. See Robles v.
Collins, No. 24-1231, 2025 WL 2429644 (Vet. App. Aug. 22,
2025) (“Veterans Court Decision”); see also S.A. 7–14
(“Board Decision”).1 Because we lack jurisdiction over the
appeal, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Robles served in the United States Marine Corps from
March to December 1979. Board Decision, S.A. 8. He first
sought treatment at the Department of Veterans Affairs
(“VA”) for right wrist pain in July 2013. Id. at 9. His x-ray
results were normal. Id. Robles again sought treatment
for his right wrist pain in September 2013. Id. He was
referred for an orthopedic consultation, and a magnetic
resonance imaging (“MRI”) test showed a tendon tear that
needed surgery, which Robles never received. Id. at 9–10.
In September 2017, Robles filed applications for
disability benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 and entitlement
to TDIU based on the wrist injury, arguing that the VA
erred in failing to properly diagnose and treat his right
wrist and he was entitled to compensation. See S.A. 20–25.
1 S.A. refers to the Supplemental Appendix, filed at
ECF 14-2.
Case: 26-1127 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 05/07/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

ROBLES v. COLLINS 3
The VA Regional Office (“RO”) denied both applications.
S.A. 16–19. Robles filed a notice of disagreement and
added his SMC claim. See S.A. 26–27. The RO informed
him that his SMC claim was not adjudicated and thus was
not on appeal. S.A. 72. Robles then appealed to the Board.
S.A. 74–75.
In April 2023, the Board remanded the § 1151, TDIU,
and SMC claims. S.A. 76–80. In June 2023, a doctor at the
RO re-examined Robles’ wrist and gave his opinion that the
initial physical examination could not have predicted the
torn ligament given repeated normal x-ray results and that
“it is not normal to get [an] MRI initially.” S.A. 84–85.
There was thus no failure in the initial care. See id. The
RO then issued a supplemental statement of the case
(“SSOC”). S.A. 103–26. In the SSOC, the RO denied all
three claims. S.A. 123–25. Regarding the § 1151 claim, the
RO relied on the doctor’s opinion to show a failure to
establish proximate cause between the VA’s medical
services and Robles’ right wrist injury. S.A. 124. The RO
denied the TDIU and SMC claims because the evidence did
not demonstrate a service-connected disability. S.A. 125.
Robles appealed to the Board, which denied all three
claims. Board Decision, S.A. 7. It denied the § 1151 claim
because the doctor’s findings that an MRI “would likely not
have been initially indicated” were “adequate and
probative.” Id. at 11. It denied the TDIU and SMC claims
because it found that Robles did not have a service-
connected disability. Id. at 12–14. Robles then appealed
to the Veterans Court, which found no error in the Board’s
conclusions and affirmed. Veterans Court Decision,
2025 WL 2429644, at *2–4. Robles appealed to this 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
Case: 26-1127 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 05/07/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

ROBLES v. COLLINS 4
interpretation of a statute or regulation relied on by the
Veterans Court in its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c).
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).
Robles argues, without support or referencing any
specific portion of the decision below, that the Veterans
Court did not adhere to the Chevron doctrine or our
precedent in Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2009), and that the Veterans Court ignored 38 U.S.C.
§ 5103A and 38 C.F.R. § 4.126(a) in rendering its decision.
Robles Inf. Br. 1. He also argues that the Veterans Court
violated the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 2. These
assertions are not supported by reasoned argument and
have no bearing on the real issue in this appeal, which is
whether Robles was entitled to benefits for his wrist injury.
Regarding that issue, the Veterans Court acted within
its statutory authority in reviewing the Board’s factual
findings, see generally Veterans Court Decision, considered
Robles’ documents after giving him multiple opportunities
to amend his briefing, id. at *1–2, and evaluated the claims
before it under the proper standard, id. at *2–4.
Furthermore, the Veterans Court did not decide any
constitutional issues. See generally id. Accordingly,
Robles’ appeal does not present any legal challenge over
which we have jurisdiction.
Because Robles in essence disagrees only with the
factual determinations set forth by the Board and the
Veterans Court’s affirmance of that decision, see Robles Inf.
Br. 1–3, and we lack jurisdiction to review determinations
of fact or apply law to fact, 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), we lack
jurisdiction over his appeal and therefore dismiss.
Case: 26-1127 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 05/07/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

ROBLES v. COLLINS 5
CONCLUSION
We have considered Robles’ remaining arguments but
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we dis-
miss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 26-1127 Document: 21 Page: 5 Filed: 05/07/2026

-- 5 of 5 --