NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RONALD J. YOUNG,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT L. WILKIE, SECRETARY 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

______________________

RONALD J. YOUNG, North Fort Myers, FL, pro se. 

 MATTHEW PAUL ROCHE, 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.; Y. KEN LEE, EVAN SCOTT GRANT, 

Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

 ______________________

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

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ronald J. Young, a Navy veteran proceeding pro se, appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims 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 claims that a treating physician intentionally harmed and sexually assaulted him. We 

dismiss Mr. Young’s appeal because this court lacks jurisdiction over appeals from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, such as this, that involve solely challenges

to factual determinations, or challenges to the application 

of law or regulation to the facts of a particular case. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Young served on active duty 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. Medical 

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. In June 2010, Mr. Young 

called the VA and reported stomach problems, which a 

nurse attributed to acid reflex and heart burn—conditions

unrelated to colonoscopies. The nurse advised Mr. Young

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 

(“Regional Office”), seeking benefits as a “person disabled 

Case: 20-1249 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 04/09/2020
YOUNG 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 Regional Office reviewed Mr. Young’s medical records and obtained an opinion 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, 

the Regional 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 prove that his asserted disability was 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 deficiency. 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: 04/09/2020
4 YOUNG v. WILKIE

entered judgment against Mr. Young on November 19, 

2019. Mr. Young appeals to this Court. 

ANALYSIS

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 challenges 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 review challenges to factual determinations, or challenges to the application of law or regulation to the facts of a particular case. Id. § 7292(d)(2). And 

while we 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 challenges 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 appeal. For that reason, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 20-1249 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 04/09/2020