N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ RONALD H. SHULER, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2016

- 1338

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 14

- 1713, Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

______________________

Decided: Novembe r 9 , 2016

______________________

D AVID E. B OELZNER , Lewis B. Puller, Jr., Veterans Benefits Clinic, William & Mary Law School, William sburg, VA, argued for claimant

- appellant.

R ENEE B URBANK , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washin gton, DC , argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R ., M ARTIN F. H OCKEY , J R ; B RIAN G RIFFIN , S AMANTHA A NNSHULER v. MCDONALD 2

S YVERSON , Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________

Before M OORE , W ALLACH , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges.

M OORE , Circuit Judge

. Ronald H. Shuler appeal s from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Cla ims ( “ Veterans Court ” ) affirming the Board of Veterans Appeals ’ (“ Board ” ) denial of benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

B ACKGROUND

On March 18, 1997, Mr. Shuler underwent surgery for a right inguinal hernia at the V eterans A ffairs Medical C enter in Gainesville, Florida. In December 1999, he filed a claim for entitlement to disability be nefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. He claimed his surgery and follow

- up were inadequate and left him suffering constant pain and unable to perform his occupation of c ommercial fishing and diving.
In May 201 4, the Board denied Mr. Shuler’s claim for benefits. In September 2015, the Veterans Court issued a single

- judge decision affirming the Board’s decision. A Veterans Court panel affi rmed the und erlying single

judge decision. Mr. Shuler appeals.

D ISCUSSION Our jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court is limited by statute. Unless an appeal raises a constitutional issue, we lack jurisdiction to review “a challenge to a factual determination” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (d)(2). Mr. Shuler’s appeal centers on his allegation that he was not advised of the risk of nerve entrapment before undergoing su rgery. The Vete r-SHULER v. MCDONALD 3

ans Court held, “[i]n sum, Mr. Shuler fails to demonstrate that the Board clearly erred in finding that the weight of the evidence was that he was informed that nerve e ntrapment was a risk or complication of his surgery.” The Veterans Cou rt’s evaluation and weighing of evidence are factual determinations over which we lack jurisdiction to review.

Because Mr. Shuler’s appeal of the Veteran s Court’s decision only involves factual determinations and the application of law to the facts of the case, Mr. Shuler’s appeal is beyond the scope of our jurisdiction.

C ONCLUSION Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Shuler’s appeal,

we dismiss

. DISMISSED

C OSTS

No costs.