NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BRADLEY J. DONAGHUE,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2021-2368

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 20-496, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr.

______________________ 

Decided: February 15, 2023

______________________ 

MEGAN EILEEN HOFFMAN, Veterans Legal Advocacy 

Group, Arlington, VA, for claimant-appellant. Also represented by HAROLD HAMILTON HOFFMAN, III. 

 ERIC JOHN SINGLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

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

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY; CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, 

Case: 21-2368 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 02/15/2023
2 DONAGHUE v. MCDONOUGH

Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

 ______________________ 

Before CHEN, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

Bradley Donaghue appeals the final decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying his claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Because Mr. Donaghue fails to raise 

arguments within the jurisdiction of our court, we dismiss 

for lack of jurisdiction. 

I 

Mr. Donaghue served in the Air Force from August 

1995 to February 2000. While deployed, Mr. Donaghue

stood an eighth of a mile away from a terrorist bombing in 

Saudi Arabia and was knocked unconscious after hitting 

his head on the tail cone of an F-16. He was evacuated to 

Isa Air Base in a civilian car. After the incident, Mr. 

Donaghue experienced anxiety when driving and periodic 

nightmares. He also reported becoming emotional when 

watching or listening to military-related content. 

He first sought behavioral health treatment from a private clinic in 2007, and later received treatment at the VA’s 

La Crosse Vet Center from 2014 to 2016. In December 

2016, he filed a claim for benefits for an acquired psychiatric disorder. A 2017 VA psychiatric examination determined that he did not meet the diagnostic criteria for 

posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and instead diagnosed an unspecified anxiety disorder unrelated to his military service. A month later, a VA regional office denied 

service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition. 

Mr. Donaghue filed a timely Notice of Disagreement 

and underwent another psychiatric examination in 2019. 

The 2019 examination found that Mr. Donaghue did not 

Case: 21-2368 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 02/15/2023
DONAGHUE v. MCDONOUGH 3

meet the diagnostic criteria for any mental disorder including PTSD. The VA regional office denied benefits for an acquired psychiatric disorder for lacking a PTSD diagnosis 

and a nexus to service for anxiety disorder. Mr. Donaghue 

appealed the rejection of a PTSD diagnosis to the Board. 

In 2019, the Board denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Board found the 2017 and 

2019 VA medical examinations to be “competent and probative evidence. . . . [and that] the examiner[s] supported 

their conclusions as to the lack of a PTSD diagnosis with a 

thorough and cogent rationale, which included consideration of the DSM-5, the Veteran’s statements, and his clinical history.” J.A. 134. The Veterans Court affirmed. 

Mr. Donaghue appeals.

II

We review de novo the Veterans Court’s interpretation 

of law. Bazalo v. West, 150 F.3d 1380, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Unless an appeal from the Veterans Court decision presents a constitutional issue, this Court may not 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)(A)–(B). 

A 

Mr. Donaghue argues that the Board relied on inadequate medical determinations because the VA examinations ignored his medical history and disregarded 

inconsistencies between the examinations. He makes a 

number of fact-based arguments. For instance, he suggests 

that the 2017 VA examination relied on an inaccurate factual premise that he did not experience a traumatic event. 

He also underscores that the 2017 examination diagnosed 

an unspecified anxiety disorder, while the 2019 examination did not result in a diagnosis of any mental disorder

including PTSD. The Veterans Court reviewed these examinations in the context of reviewing the Board’s decision. 

Case: 21-2368 Document: 55 Page: 3 Filed: 02/15/2023
4 DONAGHUE v. MCDONOUGH

And the court explained in detail why it found the examinations adequate and consistent. J.A. 4–7. Specifically, the 

Board found “credible evidence that the Veteran was exposed to traumatic events,” but no finding of compensable 

diagnosis. J.A. 5. 

Mr. Donaghue’s arguments as to the sufficiency of the 

medical examination are beyond our jurisdiction, as they 

simply challenge the factual determinations made by the 

Board and the Veterans Court’s application of law to fact 

when approving the Board’s determinations. Although Mr. 

Donaghue asserts, without support, that these alleged inadequacies pose “pure legal errors,” Appellant’s Br. 19, we 

have repeatedly held that “the sufficiency of a medical 

opinion is a matter beyond our jurisdictional reach, because the underlying question is one of fact.” Prinkey v. 

Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (listing dismissed cases arguing the sufficiency of medical opinions for 

want of jurisdiction). 

B 

Mr. Donaghue next argues that the Veterans Court 

erred by affirming the Board’s statutory violation in not

seeking relevant private records related to his PTSD claim. 

See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(1) (requiring VA to make “reasonable efforts to obtain relevant private records that claimant 

adequately identifies to [VA]”). During the 2017 examination, Mr. Donaghue reported meeting with a private counselor for two to three months in 2007. But the Board did 

not seek Mr. Donaghue’s private medical records. 

Mr. Donaghue admits that this argument was not 

raised below. Appellant’s Br. 41. Moreover, we find that 

Mr. Donaghue forfeited this argument when he affirmatively argued at the Veterans Court that the Board failed 

to obtain private records related to his bilateral knee 

claims, J.A. 106–08, yet did not make the same argument 

with respect to his PTSD claim. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 

U.S. 106, 120 (1976). Mr. Donaghue nonetheless argues 

Case: 21-2368 Document: 55 Page: 4 Filed: 02/15/2023
DONAGHUE v. MCDONOUGH 5

that we should still consider the argument, because the 

Veterans Court reviewed the 2017 examination discussing 

the records at issue. We have consistently declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, and we 

again decline to do so here. 

III

Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments 

raised on appeal, we dismiss. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 21-2368 Document: 55 Page: 5 Filed: 02/15/2023