NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MAURICE E. GIORDANI,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DAVID J. SHULKIN, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1467

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-4631, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

______________________ 

Decided: May 10, 2017

______________________ 

MAURICE E. GIORDANI, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, pro se. 

KRISTIN MCGRORY, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, ANDREW J.

STEINBERG, Office of General Counsel, United States

Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 
2 GIORDANI v. SHULKIN

Before PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Maurice Giordani seeks review of the United States 

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

memorandum opinion affirming the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals (‘Board’) decision, finding that Mr. Giordani was 

not entitled to service connected disability compensation 

for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Maurice E. 

Giordani v. Robert A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs, No. 15-4631 (Vet. App. Oct. 13, 2016). Because we 

lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we dismiss. 

I 

Mr. Giordani served on active duty in the U.S. Marine 

Corps from September 1979 to August 1980. A June 1980 

medical board report indicated that Mr. Giordani was 

admitted to a Naval medical facility and diagnosed with 

acute schizophrenia. After concluding that his schizophrenia was connected to his service, the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (“VA”) awarded Mr. Giordani compensation benefits at the fifty-percent disability level. The VA 

subsequently increased his rating and awarded him a 

total disability rating based on individual employability, 

entitling him to compensation at the one-hundred-percent 

level. 

While receiving his disability benefits for schizophrenia, Mr. Giordani sought service connection for PTSD as a 

result of an alleged assault by Navy medics. The receiving 

officer ultimately denied his claim. Years later, the VA 

conducted a health evaluation in connection with Mr. 

Giordani’s disability rating for schizophrenia and found 

that he did not have a mental disorder other than schizophrenia. Following this examination, the Board issued its 
GIORDANI v. SHULKIN 3

decision denying Mr. Giordani’s service connection for 

PTSD for lack of medical diagnosis of the condition. The 

Board concluded that Mr. Giordani did not have a diagnosis of PTSD under the criteria set forth in the relevant 

diagnostic classification standard. On appeal, through 

counsel, Mr. Giordani conceded that he had not been 

diagnosed with PTSD and thus did not contest the 

Board’s denial of service connection for that condition. 

Rather, he argued that the Board failed to consider 

whether his claim should be construed to encompass 

potential service connection for a mental disorder other 

than PTSD or schizophrenia, and that the Board failed to 

provide an adequate basis for its denial. See App’x 17–19

(arguing that those mental disorders include depressive 

disorder, insomnia, and a generalized anxiety disorder). 

The Veterans Court affirmed, finding that Mr. Giordani

had not demonstrated clear error in the Board’s decision. 

Mr. Giordani timely appealed to this court. 

II

On appeal, Mr. Giordani asks us to reverse the Veterans Court decision denying his service connection for 

PTSD. In support, he argues that “[t]he CAVC did not 

validate the correctness and truth about VA medical 

providers who state that [he] is not suffering from PTSD.” 

Appellant’s Br. 1. The government argues that this court 

lacks jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Giordani’s appeal 

because his arguments merely depend upon the Veterans 

Court’s and Board’s application of established law to the 

facts of the case. Appellee’s Br. 11. We agree with the 

government. 

Reviewing the Board’s decision, the Veterans Court 

concluded that Mr. Giordani had neither demonstrated 

that the Board committed clear error nor that it had 

otherwise inadequately explained its decision. App’x 5.

Mr. Giordani’s challenges to the Veterans Court’s decision

on appeal relate to the Board’s underlying factual findings 
4 GIORDANI v. SHULKIN

and its application of the relevant law to those facts. As 

an appellate court, however, our review of Veterans 

Court’s decisions is limited to constitutional issues and 

statutory interpretation. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). Thus, we 

lack the authority to disturb these findings on appeal. See 

id. § 7292(d)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss Mr. Giordani’s 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

The parties shall bear their own costs.