Skip to content
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Home / Decisions / United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit / Robles v. Collins
Fed. Cir.

Robles v. Collins

May 7, 2026 ·26-1127 ·Panel Decision · By Aisha Johnson

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a veteran's claim for disability benefits due to lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the appellant challenged factual determinations rather than presenting a reviewable legal or constitutional issue.

Key takeaways

  • Holding: The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appellant challenged factual determinations rather than presenting a reviewable legal or constitutional issue.
  • Vote: Panel Decision
  • Practical effect: The dismissal reinforces the strict jurisdictional boundaries of the Federal Circuit in veterans' benefits cases, preventing review of factual disputes and requiring appellants to frame appeals around specific legal or constitutional errors.

Background

Gabriel M. Robles, a former Marine, sought disability compensation under Section eleven hundred and fifty-one of Title thirty-eight of the United States Code, individual unemployability, and special monthly compensation for a right wrist injury. The Department of Veterans Affairs denied these claims, finding no proximate cause between VA medical services and the injury and no service-connected disability. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the denial. Robles appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing the lower courts failed to follow the Chevron doctrine and violated the Equal Protection Clause.

The court’s reasoning

The court reiterated that its jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited to questions of law, statutory interpretation, or constitutional issues. It cannot review factual determinations or the application of law to facts. The appellant’s arguments were unsupported by reasoned argument or specific references to the record. The Veterans Court did not decide any constitutional issues, and the appeal essentially challenged factual findings. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.

What it means going forward

The dismissal reinforces the strict jurisdictional boundaries of the Federal Circuit in veterans’ benefits cases, preventing review of factual disputes and requiring appellants to frame appeals around specific legal or constitutional errors.

Civil Social Security

On this page

Background The court’s reasoning What it means going forward

Share

Related from this court

Jul 17, 2026 Kelly v. United States Jul 17, 2026 Schindler v. Squires Jul 16, 2026 SLINGSHOT PRINTING LLC v. CANON U.S.A., INC Jul 16, 2026 4DD Holdings, LLC v. United States
Do It For The Caselaw

Just Do It For the Caselaw!

Site

  • Mission
  • The Anchors
  • Editorial Process
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Contact

Read & Listen

  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • The Weekly Brief

Follow

© 2026 Do It For The Caselaw. Not legal advice.