N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ RONALD J. YOUNG,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

ROBERT L. WILKIE, SE CRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2020

- 1249

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 18

- 6794, Judge Joseph L. Toth.

______________________
Decided: April 9, 2020

______________________

R ONALD J. Y OUNG , North Fort Myers, FL, pro se.

M ATTHEW P AUL R OCHE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by J OSEPH H. H UNT , E LIZABETH M ARIE H OSFORD , R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN , J R

. ; Y. K EN L EE , E VAN S COTT G RANT , Office of General Counsel, U nited S tates Department of Veterans Affairs , Washington, DC

.

______________________ Case: 20-1249 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 04/09/2020YOUNG v. WILKIE 2

Before N EWMAN , D YK , and R EYNA , Circuit Judge s.
P ER C URIAM

. Ronald J. Young , a Navy veteran proceeding pro se , appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans C laims that affirmed a denial of his claim for disability compensation

. Mr. Young seeks disability compensation after receiving medical treatment that he claims caused him injuries

. He also claim s that a treating physician intentionally harmed and sexually assaulted him. We dismiss Mr. Young’s appeal because this court lack s jurisdiction over appeal s from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim s , such as this, that involve solely challenge s to factual determination s , or challenge s to the application of law or regulation to the facts of a particular case

. B ACKGROUND

Mr. Young served on active dut y in the U.S. Navy from June 1969 to April 1970

. In May 2010, he underwent a colonoscopy at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) treatment facility

. Mr. Young was diagnosed with internal hemorrhoids, diverticulitis, and angiodysplasia. M edical records indicate that after the procedure , Mr. Young was in “stable ” condition and had “ no adverse effects noted from procedure or sedation.” J.A. 29. I n June 2010, Mr. Young called the VA and report ed stomach problems , which a

n urse attributed to acid reflex and heart burn

— conditions unrelated to colonoscop ies . The nurse a dvised Mr. Y oung to take over

- the

- counter Prilosec. In July 2010, Mr. Young visited the Emergency Room , where he was diagnosed with a serious urinary tract infection and was prescribed antibiotics

. Mr. Young never complained about rectal bleeding

or assault during the June 2010 call or during the July 2010 visit.
Two years after the medial treatment , in March 2012, Mr. Young submitted a claim to the VA Regional Office (“R egional Office ”), seeking be nefits as a “ person disabled Case: 20-1249 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 04/09/2020YOUNG v. WILKIE 3

by treatment or vocational rehabilitation ” under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. In particular , Mr. Young claimed that the colonoscopy caused rectal bleeding and a vitamin B

- 12 deficiency. Mr. Young also claimed that the treating physician in May 2010 intentionally hurt, violated, and raped him

. The R egional O ffice reviewed Mr. Young’s medical records and obtained an opinio n from a VA medical examiner

. The examiner opined that the treating physician properly conducted Mr. Young’s colonoscopy and did not cause Mr. Young’s bleeding or his vitamin B

- 12 deficiency. The examiner found no evidence of sexual assault. As a result,
t he R egional Office denied Mr. Young’s claim for § 1151 compensation benefits

. Mr. Young appealed the Regional Office determination to U.S. Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”).

The Board concluded that compensation was “not warranted

. ” J.A. 20. The Board explained that in order to obtain disability compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151

, Mr. Young was required to show (i) that the VA treatment caused the alleged disability and (ii) that the proximate cause of the disability was either an unforeseeable event or the fault of the VA in furnishing the medical treatment (e.g., carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, or an error in judgment ) . The Board concluded that Mr. Young failed to pr ove that his asserted disability w as caused by the medical treatment

. Mr. Young appealed the Board’s determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s determination that Mr. Young is not entitled to disability compensation under § 1151 . The Veteran’s Court affirmed the Board’s finding that Mr. Young had not identified evidence establishing a link between his May 2020 colonoscopy and his alleged rectal bleeding and vitamin B

- 12 defi ciency. In addition, the Veteran’s Court affirmed the Board ’s finding that contemporaneous medical evidence outweighed Mr. Young’s lay assertions of an assault

. The Veterans Court Case: 20-1249 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 04/09/2020YOUNG v. WILKIE 4

entered judgment against Mr. Young on November 19, 2019. Mr. Young appeal s to this Court.

A NALYSIS Our jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki , 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We have exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide chall enge s to the validity of any statute or regulation

, or to any interpretation of statutory, regulatory, or constitutional provisions

, to the extent such provisions are presented and necessary to a decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). We lack jurisdiction to re view challenge s to factual determination s , or challenge s to the application of law or regulation to the facts of a particular case. Id. § 7292(d)(2). And while w e liberally construe pro se pleadings, like those here, in favor of a pro se veteran, the veteran is still required to establish jurisdiction. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv ., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

As we understand his informal brief, Mr. Young raises
two types of challenges

. First

, Mr. Young challenge s the Veterans Court’s affirmance of the Board’s factual findings that underlie its determination that Mr. Young is not entitled to benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151(a)(1). Second, Mr. Young challenges the Veterans Court’s affirmance of the Board’s application of § 1151 (a)(1) to the facts of Mr. Young’s case

. We have no jurisdiction to hear any of Mr. Young’s challenges . 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)

. Finally, Mr. Young does not raise a constitutional challenge or issue

. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to hear Mr. Young’s appea l. F or that reason, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

DISMISSED

C OSTS

No costs. Case: 20-1249 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 04/09/2020