Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02329/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02329-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Kevin L. Perry
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KEVIN L. PERRY,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-2329

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-3362, Judge William P. 

Greene, Jr.

______________________ 

Decided: November 8, 2016 

______________________ 

KEVIN L. PERRY, El Centro, CA, pro se. 

DAVID MICHAEL KERR, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

CLAUDIA BURKE; AMANDA BLACKMON, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN,

Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

Case: 16-2329 Document: 14-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2016
2 PERRY v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before REYNA, LINN, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. Kevin L. Perry appeals a decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”) denying his request for reconsideration. We 

dismiss Mr. Perry’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as 

Mr. Perry challenges only factual findings and the application of facts to law, which are beyond the jurisdiction of 

this court.1

BACKGROUND

Mr. Perry served on active duty in the U.S. Army 

from November 1990 to October 1994. In November 1994, 

he filed a claim for veterans’ benefits, seeking disability 

compensation for a skin condition, an elbow injury, and

an ankle injury. In 1995, a Department of Veterans 

Affairs (“VA”) regional office (“RO”) granted service con-

 

1 Mr. Perry appears to be subject to an injunction 

from filing new civil actions in federal courts without 

obtaining leave of the court. See, e.g., Perry v. Veolia 

Transp., No. 11-CV-176-LAB-RBB, 2011 WL 4566449, at 

*11 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2011); Perry v. United States, 558 

F. App’x 1004, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (directing the Court 

of Federal Claims to bar further filings by Mr. Perry); 

Perry v. United States, No. 14-587C, 2014 U.S. Claims 

LEXIS 1484 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 23, 2014) (detailing Mr. Perry’s 

vexatious litigation). It is not clear from the record 

whether leave was obtained by Mr. Perry when filing in 

the Veterans Court, or whether a copy of the injunction 

was filed with the case as set forth by the district court’s 

order. We dismiss this case on other grounds today, but 

we remind Mr. Perry that this injunction should be addressed in any future filings with the federal courts.

Case: 16-2329 Document: 14-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2016
PERRY v. MCDONALD 3

nection for the skin condition, but denied his claim of 

service connection for the ankle and elbow injuries. 

Mr. Perry did not appeal this determination and it became final.

In 2001, Mr. Perry submitted additional evidence. He 

requested an increased disability rating for his skin 

condition and to reopen his previously denied claim for an 

ankle disability. He also sought disability compensation 

for various other conditions he alleged were service connected. The RO denied the claims. Mr. Perry appealed 

this determination, and the VA undertook additional 

evidentiary development. 

In 2005, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) issued a decision denying Mr. Perry’s claims for service 

connection for disabilities of the hips, knees, and ankles. 

The Board remanded an issue relating to the original

1995 rating decision for the skin condition.

Mr. Perry appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court. He argued that the Board failed to consider 

whether the claimed conditions were “aggravated by his

in-service right ankle injury.” In its 2007 decision, the 

Veterans Court rejected this argument and affirmed the 

Board’s decision. Thereafter, Mr. Perry petitioned the 

Board for reconsideration of the 2005 Board decision. The 

Board dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

Mr. Perry then requested that the RO reopen the previously disallowed claims based on newly submitted 

evidence. The RO concluded that the evidence was insufficient to reopen the disallowed claims. Mr. Perry appealed from this determination and continued to submit 

additional evidence in support of his previously disallowed claims. In 2015, the Board again denied 

Mr. Perry’s claims, noting that Mr. Perry offered no new 

or different theories. Mr. Perry appealed from that decision to the Veterans Court. In June 2016, the Veterans 

Court affirmed the Board’s determination that new and 

Case: 16-2329 Document: 14-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/08/2016
4 PERRY v. MCDONALD

material evidence had not been presented to reopen 

Mr. Perry’s claims. 

In his appeal to the Veterans Court, Mr. Perry challenged the Board’s finding about the materiality of various documents he submitted. The Veterans Court found 

that Mr. Perry failed to demonstrate how these documents were directly relevant to his claim. The Veterans 

Court affirmed the Board’s decision and this appeal 

followed.

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court 

is limited. This court has exclusive 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.” 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(c) (2006). Absent a constitutional issue, we lack 

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. at 

§ 7292(d)(2).

Here, Mr. Perry does not challenge the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation or any constitutional issue. See Informal Br. of Appellant 1. Rather, 

Mr. Perry contends that the Board and the Veterans 

Court erred in denying his request to reopen his prior 

disallowed claims in light of new evidence. He re-argues 

the merits of his claims and challenges the factual findings of the Board. This court does not have jurisdiction to 

review those issues.

For the reasons stated above, we find that we are 

without jurisdiction to consider this appeal and must 

therefore dismiss this case.

DISMISSED

Case: 16-2329 Document: 14-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/08/2016
PERRY v. MCDONALD 5

COSTS

Costs to the United States.

Case: 16-2329 Document: 14-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/08/2016