NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WILLIE B. CLAY,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1254

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 20-3400, Senior Judge William P. 

Greene, Jr.

______________________ 

Decided: June 10, 2022

______________________ 

WILLIE B. CLAY, Starkville, MS, pro se.

 MATTHEW PAUL ROCHE, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

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

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

Case: 22-1254 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 06/10/2022
2 CLAY v. MCDONOUGH

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, PROST, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Willie B. Clay appeals from the decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the “Veterans 

Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) denying compensation under 38 U.S.C. 

§ 1151 for a disability resulting from a December 2006 hip 

surgery. See Clay v. McDonough, No. 20-3400, 2021 WL 

4445383 (Vet. App. Sept. 29, 2021) (“Veterans Court Decision”). Because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we 

dismiss. 

Clay underwent a revision of a right total hip arthroplasty at a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) medical 

center in December 2006. Veterans Court Decision at *1. 

Shortly thereafter, he developed acute disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and was treated for this condition. Id. Years later, in March 2011, he was diagnosed 

with coronary artery disease (CAD). Id.

In February 2012, Clay filed an informal claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151, asserting that his hip 

operation caused a heart attack and DIC. Id. Over the 

course of the following eight years—which included two remands from the Board to the VA regional office to obtain 

more information—the VA obtained at least three medical 

opinions in which the examiner opined that the VA medical 

center did not err in treating and managing Clay, and that 

it is less likely than not that Clay’s heart condition was 

caused by or worsened by the VA’s treatment. See id. 

at *1–2; see also SAppx. 14–19; SAppx. 20–40; SAppx. 67–

71. In April 2020, the Board relied on the medical opinions 

to deny compensation. The Veterans Court affirmed, finding no clear error in the Board’s reliance on the medical 

opinions. Clay appealed to this court.

Case: 22-1254 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 06/10/2022
CLAY v. MCDONOUGH 3

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 

(Fed. Cir. 2010). We lack jurisdiction to review challenges 

to factual determinations or the application of law to the 

facts of a particular case. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). Here, to the 

extent we can discern any arguments in Clay’s informal 

brief, he appears to simply disagree with the factual determinations set forth in the Board’s April 2020 decision denying compensation and the Veterans Court’s affirmance of 

that decision. Clay does not, however, present any challenge over which we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we 

must dismiss his appeal.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 22-1254 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 06/10/2022