Adam K. Vetter v. Robert A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ADAM K. VETTER,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2014-7090
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 12-3070, Chief Judge Bruce E.
Kasold.
______________________
Decided: April 14, 2015
______________________
J EFFREY D ANIEL SMYTH , Finnegan, Henderson,
Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued
for claimant-appellant. Also represented by J ENNIFER
SWAN; R ONALD L EE S MITH , Washington, DC.
L OREN MISHA P REHEIM , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.
Also represented by J OYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E.
K IRSCHMAN, J R., CLAUDIA BURKE; Y. K EN L EE , AMANDA

-- 1 of 2 --

VETTER v. MCDONALD 2
BLACKMON, Office of General Counsel, United States
Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before CHEN, BRYSON , and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Adam K. Vetter appeals from the finding of the Unit-
ed States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans
Court) that the record does not reasonably raise a claim
for 1) a total disability rating based on individual unem-
ployability (TDIU) under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b), and 2) a
disability rating based on the loss of use of his dominant
hand under 38 C.F.R. § 4.63, which would further entitle
Mr. Vetter to additional special monthly compensation
under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(k).
Although Mr. Vetter attempts to frame the issue on
appeal as whether the Veterans Court correctly interpret-
ed the law and applied the correct legal standards, in
effect Mr. Vetter merely disagrees with the Veterans
Court’s application of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 and 38 C.F.R.
§ 4.63 to find the record does not reasonably raise a claim
under those provisions. We do not have jurisdiction to
review the Veterans Court’s application of the law to the
facts of Mr. Vetter’s case unless it presents a constitu-
tional issue—which has not been alleged here. 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(d)(2); Jackson v. Shinseki, 587 F.3d 1106, 1109
(Fed. Cir. 2009); cf. Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224,
225 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he mere recitation of a basis for
jurisdiction by party or a court[] is not controlling; we
must look to the true nature of the action.”).
Accordingly, we dismiss Mr. Vetter’s appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.

-- 2 of 2 --