NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MICHAEL W. WILLIAMS,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2019-2433

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 18-2876, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch.

______________________

Decided: June 4, 2020

______________________

J. BRYAN JONES, III, Lake Charles, LA, for claimantappellant. 

 ANN MOTTO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by JOSEPH 

H. HUNT, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, ROBERT EDWARD 

KIRSCHMAN, JR.; CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Y. KEN LEE, 

Case: 19-2433 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 06/04/2020
2 WILLIAMS v. WILKIE

Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

 ______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, REYNA and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

PROST, Chief Judge.

Michael Williams appeals from the decision of the

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying him entitlement to a compensable 

rating for service-connected pulmonary tuberculosis 

(“PTB”). See Williams v. Wilkie, No. 18-2876, 2019 WL 

3366777 (Vet. App. July 26, 2019) (“Decision”). Because we 

lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.

I

Mr. Williams served in the U.S. Air Force from July 

1974 to June 1978. In November 1978, he was diagnosed

with and treated for PTB. The United States Department 

of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) determined that the PTB was 

service connected and assigned him a 100% disability rating. An August 1981 examination showed that Mr. Williams’s PTB was inactive and asymptomatic. The VA,

therefore, reduced his disability rating to zero. 

In June 2008, Mr. Williams filed a claim for serviceconnected hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease (“COPD”), bronchitis, and lung disease (emphysema). In August 2008, he amended his claim to include 

sleep apnea. He asserted that these were all related to his

service-connected PTB. In April 2012, Mr. Williams underwent a medical examination in connection with his claim. 

The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) deemed this 

medical examination inadequate for adjudication purposes. In April 2016, Mr. Williams underwent a second 

medical examination, which is central to this appeal.

Case: 19-2433 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 06/04/2020
WILLIAMS v. WILKIE 3

The April 2016 medical opinion stated, among other 

things, that Mr. Williams’s “current COPD/emphysema, 

sleep apnea and hypertension are not residuals of pulmonary tuberculosis, nor are they due to or caused by the Veteran’s pulmonary tuberculosis.” J.A. 62. It further stated

that the “tuberculosis was treated and rendered inactive by 

1980–81; at that time there were no residual findings or 

symptoms at all. . . . COPD/emphysema is not a comp[l]ication of treated tuberculosis” and “[s]ince the [tuberculosis] 

was rendered inactive by 1980–81, it could not have aggravated the above conditions.” J.A. 62. The VA, therefore, 

did not award Mr. Williams a compensable rating. 

Mr. Williams then appealed to the Board. As relevant 

to this appeal, the Board found that “the preponderance of 

the evidence is against the Veteran’s claims seeking service 

connection for COPD and emphysema.” J.A. 28. Accordingly, the Board affirmed the rating decision. J.A. 28.

Mr. Williams then appealed the Board’s decision to the 

Veterans Court. He argued that the April 2016 medical 

examination was “inadequate” because it was “internally 

inconsistent” and “does not provide a rationale.” J.A. 15. 

The Veterans Court disagreed and affirmed the Board’s decision.1 The Veterans Court reasoned that the April 2016 

medical opinion, “when read as a whole, . . . unambiguously 

concludes that [Mr. Williams]’s PTB is inactive with no 

chronic residuals.” Decision, 2019 WL 3366777, at *3.

Mr. Williams now appeals, contending we have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). 

II

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292 we have limited jurisdiction 

over an appeal from a Veterans Court’s decision. “Absent 

1 Other issues that were before the Veterans Court

are not on appeal to us. 

Case: 19-2433 Document: 30 Page: 3 Filed: 06/04/2020
4 WILLIAMS v. WILKIE

a constitutional issue, this court is precluded from reviewing challenges to factual determinations or challenges to 

an application of law to fact.” King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 

1339, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Although this Court has 

jurisdiction to review a ‘rule of law,’ including a rule established by a judicial precedent of the Veterans Court, it may 

not review the application of law to the facts of a particular 

case.” Id. at 1346. In ascertaining whether we have jurisdiction, “the mere recitation of a basis for jurisdiction . . . is 

not controlling; we must look to the true nature of the action.” Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224, 225 (Fed. Cir. 

1992).

III

Mr. Williams contends that we have jurisdiction over 

his appeal because he is “raising a question of interpretation of relevant law, [which is] a matter within the court’s 

jurisdiction.” Appellant’s Br. 2 (citing Madden v. Gober, 

125 F.3d 1477, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). 

In Madden, we determined that we had jurisdiction because the appeal could be characterized as “raising a question of the interpretation of relevant law.” Madden, 

125 F.3d at 1480 (emphasis added). Here, although Mr. 

Williams argues for an interpretation about what inferences constitute a “medical determination” under Acevedo

v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 286 (2012), such an interpretation 

is irrelevant to the outcome of this case.2 As the Government points out, the Veterans Court, besides citing Acevedo

in its apparent legal standard section, never applied 

Acevedo. See Appellee’s Br. 11. Instead, the Veterans 

Court made several statements refuting any notion that 

2 Mr. Williams and the Government appear to agree

that Acevedo precludes the Board from making certain inferences that result in a medical determination. See Appellant’s Br. 3; Appellee’s Br. 9–10, 13–14. 

Case: 19-2433 Document: 30 Page: 4 Filed: 06/04/2020
WILLIAMS v. WILKIE 5

inferences were made. For example, the Veterans Court 

noted that, “when read as a whole, the examination report 

unambiguously concludes that the appellant’s PTB is inactive with no chronic residuals.” Decision, 2019 WL 

3366777, at *3. The Veterans Court further stated that 

“the examiner opined that the appellant’s COPD and emphysema were not residuals of PTB and were not caused by 

or aggravated by PTB, and provided a thorough rationale 

to support his conclusions.” Id. Nothing in Mr. Williams’s 

briefing persuades us that an interpretation of a rule of law 

articulated in Acevedo is relevant to this appeal.3 

Accordingly, the true nature of this action asks us to 

review the adequacy of the medical examination. See, e.g., 

Appellant’s Br. 6 (arguing that the medical opinion is “internally inconsistent”). We therefore lack jurisdiction over 

Mr. Williams’s appeal and are compelled to dismiss it. See 

Prinkey v. Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2013) 

(“[T]he sufficiency of a medical opinion is a matter beyond 

our jurisdictional reach, because the underlying question 

is one of fact.”); see also Anderson v. Shinseki, 558 F. App’x 

1031, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (rejecting appellant’s “attempt 

to frame [the] challenge as a question of law” to establish 

jurisdiction).

DISMISSED

COSTS

The parties shall bear their own costs.

3 Mr. Williams did not submit a reply brief. 

Case: 19-2433 Document: 30 Page: 5 Filed: 06/04/2020