Court Opinion

ID: 9409780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 15:01:43.940074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:53.407475
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1619   Document: 33     Page: 1   Filed: 07/19/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                 TONY L. GOLLIDAY,
                  Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

       DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
              VETERANS AFFAIRS,
               Respondent-Appellee
              ______________________

                       2022-1619
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-6386, Judge Scott Laurer.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: July 19, 2023
                 ______________________

     SEAN A. RAVIN, Miami, FL, argued for claimant-appel-
 lant.

     EVAN WISSER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di-
 vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
 DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; Y. KEN LEE, SAMANTHA ANN SYVERSON, Office
 of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
 Affairs, WASHINGTON, DC.
Case: 22-1619     Document: 33     Page: 2    Filed: 07/19/2023

 2                                    GOLLIDAY   v. MCDONOUGH

                   ______________________

     Before HUGHES, LINN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
     Tony Golliday appeals a decision from the Court of Ap-
 peals for Veterans Claims denying service connection for a
 right knee disability and a right ankle disability. While this
 court has jurisdiction over certain constitutional and legal
 issues, we are statutorily prohibited from reviewing the ap-
 plication of law to facts. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Thus, we
 dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
                               I
      Mr. Golliday served honorably in the United States
 Army from November 1979 until February 1983. In April
 2004, Mr. Golliday filed a claim with the VA, seeking disa-
 bility benefits for right knee and ankle conditions that he
 stated began during his service. At first, the regional office
 denied service connection for Mr. Golliday’s claim, basing
 its finding in part on the absence of some of Mr. Golliday’s
 service records. Mr. Golliday’s claim was then remanded by
 the Board and by the Veterans Court several times be-
 tween 2011 and 2019 to continue developing the claim and
 to allow the agency to attempt to locate Mr. Golliday’s ab-
 sent service medical records. Eventually, the agency deter-
 mined that it could not locate any other service medical
 records for Mr. Golliday. Then, the regional office and the
 Board relied on other available evidence in the record to
 deny service connection, such as Mr. Golliday’s failure to
 report any right knee or ankle issues during his discharge
 evaluation, and other medical records showing that the in-
 juries more likely occurred post-service. The Veterans
 Court affirmed, finding that the medical records that could
 be found indicated both of his injuries were less likely
 caused by his service, and more likely caused by post-ser-
 vice events. Mr. Golliday now appeals.
Case: 22-1619     Document: 33      Page: 3   Filed: 07/19/2023

 GOLLIDAY   v. MCDONOUGH                                     3

                               II
     Our jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans
 Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d); see Wan-
 less 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 inter-
 pretation of statutory, regulatory, or constitutional provi-
 sions if such provisions are presented and necessary to a
 decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). But we lack jurisdiction to re-
 view challenges to factual determinations, or challenges to
 the application of law or regulation to the facts of a partic-
 ular case, unless an appeal from a Veterans Court decision
 presents a constitutional issue. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
     Mr. Golliday’s sole argument on appeal is that the Vet-
 erans Court erred by basing its finding on the absence of
 service treatment records, in violation of the Secretary’s
 statutory duty to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence to
 substantiate a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d). But neither the
 Board nor the Veterans Court relied on the absence of med-
 ical records for their findings. Instead, the Board and the
 Veterans Court, while acknowledging that certain medical
 records could not be located, based their findings on the
 medical records that could be obtained. In fact, as dis-
 cussed above, Mr. Golliday’s claims were remanded several
 times to continue to consider Mr. Golliday’s claim in light
 of available evidence. Thus, the decision we are reviewing
 would not be altered even if we were to adopt the position
 Mr. Golliday advocates—that the absence of medical rec-
 ords is not pertinent evidence when the government loses
 a veteran’s service medical records—so we lack jurisdiction
 over this appeal. See Cromer v. Nicholson, 455 F.3d 1346,
 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, reviewing Mr. Gol-
 liday’s appeal would require us to review the application of
 law to the facts of Mr. Golliday’s case, which we are prohib-
 ited from doing by statute. Because Mr. Golliday’s appeal
 is directed to applications of law to the facts of his claim,
Case: 22-1619   Document: 33      Page: 4   Filed: 07/19/2023

 4                                  GOLLIDAY   v. MCDONOUGH

 we lack jurisdiction to review Mr. Golliday’s appeal. Ac-
 cordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
                      DISMISSED
                          COSTS
 No costs.