NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RONALD H. TOLAND, JR.,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2018-1921

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 17-1003, Judge Michael P. Allen.

______________________

Decided: February 7, 2019

______________________

RONALD H. TOLAND, JR., Raleigh, NC, pro se. 

 ADAM E. LYONS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

JOSEPH H. HUNT, CLAUDIA BURKE, ROBERT EDWARD 

KIRSCHMAN, JR.

 ______________________

Before MOORE, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
2 TOLAND v. WILKIE

PER CURIAM.

Ronald H. Toland, Jr. appeals a decision of the U.S. 

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

affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. 

The Board denied Mr. Toland entitlement to a compensable 

rating for chronic left flank pain, as well as entitlement to 

service connection for a lumbar spine disorder, a left arm 

disorder, and a left leg disorder. Because Mr. Toland’s appeal involves issues that fall outside this court’s jurisdiction, we dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Toland served honorably on active duty in the U.S.

Army between November 1990 and February 1994. A November 1991 service treatment record indicates that Mr. 

Toland suffered a back injury while lifting a heavy spool of 

wire. About a year later, Mr. Toland was treated for pain 

on his left side lower rib, noted as a “flank injury.” He was 

treated for this problem several times throughout service. 

Mr. Toland’s separation examination in 1994 noted his 

spine, “other musculoskeletal,” and upper and lower extremities as normal. In February 1994, Mr. Toland filed 

an application for compensation. In 1995, after leaving service, Mr. Toland suffered a fractured rib in a motor vehicle 

accident. In 1996, the regional office (“RO”) determined 

Mr. Toland had service connection for chronic left flank 

pain, but assigned a 0% disability rating. 

In December 2004, Mr. Toland submitted a claim, noting, among other things, that his flank problem had become worse and that he experienced numbness and 

tingling in his left side. The RO continued the 0% disability 

rating for his chronic left flank pain and denied service connection for the other conditions. In response, Mr. Toland 

submitted additional medical opinion letters. A first examiner diagnosed him with degenerative cervical and lumbar 

spine syndrome and spondylarthrosis of the lumbar spine. 

While a second examiner opined that his current back 
TOLAND v. WILKIE 3

condition was associated with and aggravated by his service-connected left flank pain, a third examiner disagreed,

stating Mr. Toland’s current back pain was not in the same 

region as his flank pain and finding “no anatomic or physiological causality.” Thereafter, the Board remanded the 

claim to provide Mr. Toland VA medical examinations. 

Mr. Toland received a VA examination in January 

2014. The examiner found Mr. Toland’s 1995 motor vehicle 

accident to be “the most obvious cause” of his lower back 

pain, his back condition was less likely than not related to 

his service, and his back condition was less likely than not 

aggravated by his service-connected left flank pain. In 

2015, the Board again remanded Mr. Toland’s claim for further development. In 2016, the VA examiner found, among 

other things, that it was less likely than not that Mr. Toland’s current back pain was related to his heavy lifting 

injury or his in-service left flank pain. The Board affirmed 

the denial of entitlement to a compensable rating for 

chronic left flank pain, as well as entitlement to service 

connection for a lumbar spine disorder, left arm disorder, 

and left leg disorder. 

The Veterans Court affirmed. It determined Mr. Toland presented no argument related to his claim for entitlement to service connection for left arm and left leg 

disabilities, or his non-compensable rating for left flank 

pain. It therefore narrowed the issue to Mr. Toland’s lumbar spine claim, and considered his arguments that the 

Board (1) improperly downgraded the private medical 

opinions and (2) failed to ensure that the VA provided adequate medical examinations. The Veterans Court concluded the Board permissibly evaluated the record medical 

evidence and did not clearly err in finding the VA provided 

adequate medical examinations. Mr. Toland appeals.

DISCUSSION

Our review of Veterans Court decisions is limited by 

statute. We have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) to 
4 TOLAND v. WILKIE

review a decision of the Veterans Court “with respect to the 

validity of [the] decision . . . on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof . . . that 

was relied on by the Court in making the decision.” See 

also § 7292(c). “[W]e are prohibited, absent a constitutional issue, from reviewing challenges to factual determinations or the application of a statute or regulation to the 

facts of a particular case.” Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 

1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014); accord § 7292(d)(2). 

While we are sympathetic to Mr. Toland’s situation, we

must dismiss his appeal because it presents issues outside 

of our jurisdiction. Mr. Toland argues that he has experienced debilitating problems from his left hip and back for 

years, resulting in pain, exhaustion, and depression. He 

argues the pain and depression are documented in the record evidence, and he seeks a favorable decision resulting in 

a rating “increase of at least 30% or higher.” Informal Br. 

1–2. As presented, Mr. Toland essentially asks us to reweigh the record evidence, which is a factual assessment 

outside of our jurisdiction. See, e.g., Bastien v. Shinseki, 

599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We have considered 

Mr. Toland’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Mr. Toland’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.