N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ LUTHER WILLIAMS, JR. , Claimant

- Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2019

- 1428

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 17

- 2972, Judge Joseph L. Falvey

, Jr.

______________________
Decided: June 7, 2019

______________________

L UTHER W ILLIAMS , J R

. , Jackson, MS, pro se.

K

ARA W ESTERCAMP , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent

- appellee. Also represen ted by J OSEPH H. H UNT , R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN , J R ., L OREN M ISHA P REHEIM ; Y. K EN L EE , D EREK S CADDEN , Office ofWILLIAMS v. WILKIE 2

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs , Washington, DC

.

______________________
Before N EWMAN , T ARANTO , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. In 1978, Luther Williams, Jr.

, an Army veteran

, filed with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) a claim for
veterans ’ benefits due to what he alleged was a liver

- based disability. After a c omplex course of related proceedings, the VA’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals determined that Mr. Williams did not have a liver

- based disability that entitles him to benefits. In re Williams , No. 98

- 07 067, 2017 WL 1298720, at * 6 (Bd. Vet. App. Feb. 1, 2017) (Board Decision ); Suppl. App. 12

– 26. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ( Veterans Court ) affirmed. Williams v. Wilkie

, No. 17

- 2972, 2018 WL 6597248, at *4 (Vet. App. Dec. 17, 2018) ( Veterans Court Decision ); Suppl. App. 1

– 6

. Mr. Williams appeals the Veterans Court’s decision. Because Mr. Williams’s challenge falls outside our limited jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal.

I

Mr. Williams served on active duty in the Army from June 1974 to June 1977. In February and March 1978, professionals at a VA hospital performed diagnostic tests on and took biopsies o f Mr. Williams’s liver. A biopsy revealed “non

- specific hepatitis, NBsAg negative, but antibody positive,” plus a “probable subclinical case of hepatitis B at least 6 months ago.” Veterans C ourt Decision, 2018 WL 6597248, at *1.
In April 1978, Mr. Williams submitted a claim for benefits based on a liver disability, which he alleged was connected to his Army service. A VA Regional Office (RO) denied the claim . Mr. Williams objected to the RO ’s decision, but the RO later sent his case materials to the wrongW ILLIAMS v. WILKIE 3

address. When Mr. Williams eventually sought to appeal to the Board, the Board ruled that his appeal was untimely. See Williams v. Principi , No. 02

- 754, 2004 WL 2283934, at *1 (Vet. App. Oct. 1, 2004). Because the VA’s use of an incorrect address prevented the RO decision from becoming final, the Veterans Court reversed the Board’s decision in relevant part and remanded Mr. Williams’s liver

- disability claim for consideration on the merits

. Id. at *7.
On remand, the Board found that Mr. Williams did not have a liver disability and denied his claim. See Williams v. Shinseki , No. 08

- 1180, 2009 WL 1133063, at *2 (Vet. App. Apr. 27, 2009). Following the VA’s conce ssion that the Board did not determine whether Mr. Williams had a liver disability at any point after he first filed his claim in 1978,the Veterans Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for the Board’s reconsideration of Mr. Williams’s claim

. Id. at *3. The Board obtained a medical opinion regarding Mr. Williams’s condition and again denied his claim. See Williams v. Shinseki , No. 12

- 3690, 2013 WL 5488829, at * 1 (Vet. App. Oct. 3, 2013). The Veterans Court concluded that the Board did not adequatel y explain its bases for denying Mr. Williams’s claim, particularly because the medical examiner noted that more tests might be
necessary. Id. at *2. Therefore, the Veterans Court vacated the Board’s decision yet again and remanded for further reconsidera tion. Id. at *3.
Before considering the case for a fourth time , the Board obtained a medical opinion from Dr. Alan Rosman, who stated that Mr. Williams’s record was consistent with resolved hepatitis B, “ which does not result in chronic liver disease or m orbidity .” Board Decision , 2017 WL 1298720, at *5. Weighing the conflicting medical evidence, the Board credited Dr. Rosman’s opinion and conclud ed that Mr. Williams was not entitled to a determination of a service

- connected liver disability. Id. at *6

– 9. The Veterans Court then held that the Board had provided an adequate explanation for its decision and affirmed. Veterans CourtWILLIAMS v. WILKIE 4

Decision , 2018 WL 6597248, at *4. Mr. Williams timely appeal ed , seeking our review of the Veterans Court’s decision.

II

We have limited jurisdiction over appeals from Veterans Court decisions. Our jurisdictional statute permits us to review questions of constitutional

, statutory
, and regulatory interpretation that arise in Veterans Court decisions. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). W here the veteran does not raise a constitutional issue, as is true here, we “may not 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. § 7292(d)(2).
We have expl ained that , in circumstances like those involved here

, a veteran’s entitlement to benefits requires “(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in

- service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the prese nt disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service.” Shedden v. Principi , 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board correctly articulated this standard

. Board Decision , 2017 WL 1298720, at *3. The Veterans Court did the same. Veterans Court Decision , 2018 WL 6597248, at *2. Applying th e standard, the Board determined that Mr. Williams was not entitled to benefits for a liver disability because it found that he did not in fact have a qualifying liver disability througho ut the relevant time period. Board Decision , 2017 WL 1298720, at *1. The Veterans Court affirmed t he Board’s decision

. Veterans Court Decision , 2018 WL 6597248, at *4. We do not have jurisdiction to review such fact

- bound determinations. 38 U.S.C. § 7 292(d)(2).
Although Mr. Williams contends that he raises issues of legal interpretation, we see no such issue in the materials before us. Mr. Williams mentions the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but the Veterans Court d id not d ecide any issue related to thoseW ILLIAMS v. WILKIE 5

constitutional provisions , nor do we discern any issue that might involve them

. We have considered Mr. Williams’s other arguments but find that they do not involve an issue about the proper interpretation of a statute or regulation. In short, Mr. Williams ’s appeal raises only factual or law

application issues , over which we lack jurisdiction

. Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal.

No costs.

DISMISSED