NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RAYMOND R. MEDINA,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DAT TRAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2020-2060

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 19-5858, Judge Amanda L. Meredith.

______________________

Decided: January 22, 2021

______________________

RAYMOND R. MEDINA, San Antonio, TX, pro se. 

 IOANA CRISTEI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

JEFFREY B. CLARK, TARA K. HOGAN, ROBERT EDWARD 

KIRSCHMAN, JR. 

 ______________________

Case: 20-2060 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 01/22/2021
2 MEDINA v. TRAN

Before MOORE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Medina appeals a decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans 

Court) affirming the Board of Veterans Appeals’ finding of 

no clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in its prior denial 

of his request for an increased disability rating. See Medina v. Wilkie, No. 19-5858, 2020 WL 1982281 (Vet. App. 

Apr. 27, 2020). Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Medina served on active duty in the United States

Army from April 1965 to April 1967. In March 2013, the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted Mr. Medina 

service connection for: (1) hearing loss with a noncompensable rating; (2) tinnitus with a ten percent rating, the 

highest rating assignable for this condition; (3) deviated 

nasal septum with a ten percent rating, the highest rating 

assignable for this condition; and (4) a left wrist condition 

with a ten percent rating, the highest rating assignable if 

the veteran’s wrist is not completely immobile. Medina did 

not appeal this decision, and it became final. 

In October 2014, Mr. Medina moved for revision of the

2013 decision. He argued that the VA committed CUE by 

evaluating his wrist condition and deviated nasal septum 

under the wrong diagnostic codes and by failing to consider 

his sleep apnea. The Board denied Mr. Medina’s motion, 

finding the evidence supported the VA’s choice of diagnostic codes and did not show that Mr. Medina’s sleep apnea 

was service-related. S.A. 12–14. Mr. Medina appealed to 

the Veterans Court, which affirmed, finding that the 

Board’s analysis was thorough and that no evidence in the 

record contradicted the Board’s determination that 

Mr. Medina’s sleep apnea was not service-related. S.A. 5.

Case: 20-2060 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 01/22/2021
MEDINA v. TRAN 3

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we may 

review “the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on 

a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in 

making the decision.” Except with respect to constitutional 

issues, 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.” 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(d)(2). 

Mr. Medina argues that the Veterans Court should 

have found that the VA committed CUE (1) in classifying

his wrist condition and deviated nasal septum and (2) in 

failing to provide a disability rating for Mr. Medina’s sleep 

apnea. But the Veterans Court’s affirmance of the Board’s 

determination is an application of law to facts, which is outside of our jurisdiction to review. The Board reviewed the 

evidence of record and found that the VA did not commit 

CUE in “failing to assign a separate or higher rating under 

[a different] Diagnostic Code” for Mr. Medina’s wrist condition or deviated nasal septum. S.A. 11–13. The Veterans 

Court affirmed, concluding that the Board’s determination 

that the VA did not commit CUE was not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance 

with law,” and, in fact, determined that the Board’s analysis of the diagnostic codes “thoroughly explained why each 

purported error did not rise to the level of CUE.” S.A. 5. 

The Veterans Court also determined that the Board’s failure to specifically discuss regulations concerning the 

weight of evidence1 simply amounted to a dispute over the 

VA’s weighing of the evidence, which “does not amount to 

CUE.” S.A. 6. Regarding sleep apnea, the Board found no 

1 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, and 4.7.

Case: 20-2060 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 01/22/2021
4 MEDINA v. TRAN

evidence of record that suggested Mr. Medina’s sleep apnea 

was service-connected or that he intended to submit a service connection claim. S.A. 14. Furthermore, the Veterans 

Court also found Mr. Medina failed to provide any evidence 

that existed at the time of the “rating decision that contradict[ed] the Board’s determination that the evidence did 

not relate [sleep apnea] to his service or to a service-connected disability.” S.A. 5. Failing to identify a legal error, 

Mr. Medina’s challenges before us amount to a disagreement with the Veterans Court’s application of law to fact. 

We do not have jurisdiction to revisit these determinations 

by the Veterans Court.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Medina’s remaining arguments and find that they do not raise issues within our jurisdiction. Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Medina’s 

appeal, we dismiss.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 20-2060 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 01/22/2021