Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07105/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07105-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Johnny R. Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOHNNY R. WILLIAMS,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7105

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-2421, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

______________________ 

Decided: December 15, 2015

______________________ 

 JOHNNY R. WILLIAMS, Mansura, LA, pro se.

 SOSUN BAE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

SCOTT D. AUSTIN, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., BENJAMIN C.

MIZER; Y. KEN LEE, JONATHAN ELLIOTT TAYLOR, Office of 

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Case: 15-7105 Document: 15-2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/15/2015
2 WILLIAMS v. MCDONALD

Before O’MALLEY, PLAGER, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Johnny R. Williams seeks review of the 

June 15, 2015 decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the July 10, 2015 

decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). For 

the reasons below, we dismiss Williams’ appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Williams served on active duty from July 1974 to 

March 1976 and from April 1981 to September 1981. 

Joint Appendix (“JA”) 55. Williams applied for entitlement to service connection for (1) lung disease, (2) residual disability as a result of stroke, and (3) a brain tumor,

claiming that these diseases resulted from his prior 

asbestos exposure while in service. Williams also applied 

for entitlement to service connection for depression and 

hypertension. JA 7. Williams testified at two hearings, 

before the Veterans Administration Regional Office (“RO”) 

in March 2004 and before a Veterans Law Judge (“VLJ”) 

from the Board in August 2005. 

We briefly review the procedural posture of Williams’ 

present appeal. The Board initially denied Williams’ 

claims in May 2012, and the Veterans Court affirmed in a 

June 2013 decision. JA 56. Subsequently, in August 

2013, this Court implemented a remedial plan for the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). See Nat’l Org. of 

Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 725 

F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“NOVA”). As set forth in this 

remedial plan, the VA agreed to, inter alia, move for 

remand of appropriate cases in which an invalidated 2011 

Case: 15-7105 Document: 15-2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/15/2015
WILLIAMS v. MCDONALD 3

VA rule1 had “eliminated veterans’ procedural due process and appellate rights that were previously provided under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103.” Id. at 1313; see generally 38 

C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (“Every claimant has the right to written 

notice of the decision made on his or her claim, the right 

to a hearing, and the right of representation.”). 

Pursuant to the remedial plan, on October 23, 2013, 

the VA moved for a voluntary remand of Williams’ case, 

which we granted. Williams v. Shinseki, No. 2013-7115, 

2014 WL 463017 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2013); JA 26-30. 

Afterwards, on February 6, 2014, the Veterans Court 

vacated the Board’s 2012 decision and remanded to the 

Board for additional proceedings. JA8. 

On remand, the Board sent written notice to Williams 

explaining that “the May 31, 2012, Board decision may 

have applied an invalidated rule relating to the duties of 

the [VLJ] who presided at your Board hearing,” and 

notified Williams that he “may choose to have a new

hearing at which [he would] also have the opportunity to 

submit additional evidence.” JA 47. In May 2014, Williams responded, indicating that he did not “want to 

appear at a new hearing.” JA 53.

Thereafter, the Board proceeded to adjudicate the 

merits of Williams’ claims. Upon reviewing the evidence

and testimony from Williams’ prior hearings, the Board 

denied Williams’ claims. JA 74. In its opinion dated July 

10, 2014, the Board noted that, during Williams’ prior 

hearings, the VLJ and the Decision Review Officer “asked 

specific questions . . . directed at identifying the criteria 

for service connection,” and “sought to identify any perti1 See Rules Governing Hearings Before the Agency 

of Original Jurisdiction and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals; Clarification, 76 Fed. Reg. 52,572 (Dep’t of Veterans Affairs Aug. 23, 2011).

 

Case: 15-7105 Document: 15-2 Page: 3 Filed: 12/15/2015
4 WILLIAMS v. MCDONALD

nent evidence not currently associated with the claims.” 

JA 60. Moreover, the Board found that “the hearings 

focused on the elements necessary to substantiate [Williams’] claims, and [Williams], through his testimony, 

demonstrated that he had actual knowledge of the elements necessary to substantiate his claim.” Id. The 

Board therefore concluded that Williams “is not shown to 

be prejudiced,” and that “consistent with Bryant [v. 

Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 488 (2010),] the VLJ complied with 

the duties set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2).” JA 60-61. 

Williams requested reconsideration of the Board’s decision, explaining that he had erred in deciding not to 

request a new hearing, and that he had now changed his 

mind and wanted a hearing. JA 77. The Board denied 

Williams’ request for reconsideration on September 3, 

2014, finding that Williams’ request “does not demonstrate that the Board decision contains obvious error of 

fact or law.” JA 80. 

Williams then appealed to the Veterans Court, arguing that the VA failed to satisfy its duty to assist, and 

requested a new hearing. JA 8. The Veterans Court 

found that, by providing Williams with notice and an 

opportunity for a post-NOVA hearing, the Board “substantially complied with the Court’s remand.” Williams v. 

McDonald, No. 14-2421 (Vet. App. June 15, 2015). Noting 

that Williams had declined the opportunity for a new 

hearing, the Veterans Court held that it had “no basis 

upon which to disturb the Board’s decision” and that a 

new hearing was not warranted. JA 8-9. Accordingly, the 

Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s July 10, 2014 decision. JA 9. The Veterans Court also noted that it did not 

have jurisdiction over the Board’s denial of Williams’ 

motion for reconsideration, since Williams did not allege 

any new evidence or changed circumstances in his motion 

for reconsideration. JA 9.

Case: 15-7105 Document: 15-2 Page: 4 Filed: 12/15/2015
WILLIAMS v. MCDONALD 5

Williams now appeals the judgment of the Veterans 

Court.

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited. We have jurisdiction “to review and 

decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or 

regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent 

presented and necessary to a decision.” Wanless v. 

Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(c)). “Absent a constitutional issue, however, we lack the jurisdiction to ‘review (A) a challenge to a 

factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or 

regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.’” 

Id. (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)).

Here, Williams asks us to “[p]lease review [38 C.F.R. 

§] 3.103 . . . in my claim.” Appellant Br. at 1. The VA 

responds that we lack jurisdiction over Williams’ claim 

and that, even if we had jurisdiction, the VA fulfilled its 

duties under the NOVA remedial plan and decisions. 

Respondent Br. at 14 (citing Smith v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 

1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the VA had 

satisfied its duties under the NOVA remedial plan by 

filing a joint motion for the Veterans Court to remand the 

veteran’s case to the board, even though the Veterans 

Court had denied the motion)). 

We agree with the VA that we lack jurisdiction over 

Williams’ appeal. Though Williams asks us to review 

§ 3.103, we note that the Veterans Court did not interpret 

that regulation in adjudicating Williams’ appeal. Williams’ dispute over the correctness of the Veterans Court’s 

judgment therefore does not raise a challenge regarding 

“the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof,” nor does Williams contest the interpretation of any constitutional or statutory provision. See 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(c). He merely disagrees with the Veterans 

Case: 15-7105 Document: 15-2 Page: 5 Filed: 12/15/2015
6 WILLIAMS v. MCDONALD

Court’s refusal to accede to Williams’ belated request for a 

new hearing. That judgment does not concern any issue 

over which we have jurisdiction. See Githens v. Shinseki, 

676 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We have no jurisdiction over an issue of interpretation that does not 

exist.”). 

The Veterans Court’s decision on appeal was limited 

to a determination of whether the Board had “substantially complied” with the Veterans Court’s February 2014 

remand order, in view of the fact that Williams declined 

the opportunity for a hearing in the first instance. JA 9. 

Though Williams does not specify his grounds for appeal, 

he appears to argue that the Veterans Court should have 

found that the Board, in declining to provide Williams a 

hearing once he changed his mind with respect to his 

desire for one, failed to comply with its obligations under 

§ 3.103. This issue, however, is directed to the application 

of law to the facts of a particular case, and is thus outside 

the scope of our review. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over Williams’ appeal. 

CONCLUSION

Williams’ appeal arises from a judgment in which the 

Veterans Court merely applied the law “to the facts of a 

particular case,” which is a matter over which we lack 

jurisdiction. See Wanless, 618 F.3d at 1336. We therefore 

must dismiss Williams’ appeal.

DISMISSED

Case: 15-7105 Document: 15-2 Page: 6 Filed: 12/15/2015