
    Cheramy RUSBULDT, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 2012-7177.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    May 22, 2013.
    Virginia A. Girard-Brady, ABS Legal Advocates P.A., Lawrence, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.
    Michael P. Goodman, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Christa A. Shriber, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. Of counsel was David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel.
    Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Cheramy Rusbuldt (“Rusbuldt”) appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying her claim for service connection for her veteran husband’s death and consequent determination of ineligibility for survivor dependency and indemnification compensation benefits. Rusbuldt v. Shinseki, No. 10-3829, 2012 WL 1940802 (Vet.App. May 30, 2012) (unpublished).

Although Rusbuldt frames the issue on appeal as whether the Veterans Court correctly interpreted the law and applied the correct legal standard, in effect she disagrees with the application of the eviden-tiary requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 5107 to the facts of her case. We do not have jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s application of the law to the facts unless it presents a constitutional issue, not presented 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 Rusbuldt’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

Costs

No costs.  