Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01338/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01338-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Ronald H. Shuler
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RONALD H. SHULER,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1338

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-1713, Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

______________________ 

Decided: November 9, 2016

______________________ 

DAVID E. BOELZNER, Lewis B. Puller, Jr., Veterans 

Benefits Clinic, William & Mary Law School, Williamsburg, VA, argued for claimant-appellant. 

RENEE BURBANK, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented 

by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR; BRIAN GRIFFIN, SAMANTHA ANN 

Case: 16-1338 Document: 38-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2016
2 SHULER v. MCDONALD

SYVERSON, Office of General Counsel, United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Ronald H. Shuler appeals from a decision by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) 

affirming the Board of Veterans Appeals’ (“Board”) denial 

of benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. We dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

On March 18, 1997, Mr. Shuler underwent surgery for 

a right inguinal hernia at the Veterans Affairs Medical 

Center in Gainesville, Florida. In December 1999, he 

filed a claim for entitlement to disability benefits under 

38 U.S.C. § 1151. He claimed his surgery and follow-up 

were inadequate and left him suffering constant pain and 

unable to perform his occupation of commercial fishing 

and diving. 

In May 2014, the Board denied Mr. Shuler’s claim for 

benefits. In September 2015, the Veterans Court issued a 

single-judge decision affirming the Board’s decision. A 

Veterans Court panel affirmed the underlying singlejudge decision. Mr. Shuler appeals.

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. Unless an appeal raises a 

constitutional issue, we lack jurisdiction to review “a 

challenge to a factual determination” or “a challenge to a 

law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular 

case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Mr. Shuler’s appeal centers 

on his allegation that he was not advised of the risk of 

nerve entrapment before undergoing surgery. The VeterCase: 16-1338 Document: 38-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2016
SHULER v. MCDONALD 3

ans Court held, “[i]n sum, Mr. Shuler fails to demonstrate 

that the Board clearly erred in finding that the weight of 

the evidence was that he was informed that nerve entrapment was a risk or complication of his surgery.” The 

Veterans Court’s evaluation and weighing of evidence are 

factual determinations over which we lack jurisdiction to 

review. 

Because Mr. Shuler’s appeal of the Veterans Court’s 

decision only involves factual determinations and the 

application of law to the facts of the case, Mr. Shuler’s 

appeal is beyond the scope of our jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Shuler’s appeal, 

we dismiss. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1338 Document: 38-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2016