Court Opinion

ID: 9925643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 16:01:51.378663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:19.640133
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1153    Document: 47     Page: 1   Filed: 01/22/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  JERRY C. HULSEY,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2023-1153
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 17-1550, Senior Judge William P.
 Greene, Jr.
                 ______________________

                Decided: January 22, 2024
                 ______________________

     JERRY COPELAND HULSEY, I, Talisay City, Cebu, Philip-
 pines, pro se.

     BRYAN MICHAEL BYRD, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, Office of
Case: 23-1153    Document: 47      Page: 2    Filed: 01/22/2024

 2                                     HULSEY v. MCDONOUGH

 General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
 Affairs, Washington, DC.
                 ______________________

  Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit
                        Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Jerry C. Hulsey appeals a decision of the Court of Ap-
 peals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) that affirmed
 in part and vacated in part a decision of the Board of Vet-
 erans’ Appeals (“Board”). Because we lack jurisdiction, we
 dismiss.
                        BACKGROUND
     Mr. Hulsey served on active duty in the U.S. Marine
 Corps from April to December 1969. In January 1970, he
 sought service connection for chronic bronchitis and for feet
 and ankle conditions. In May 1970, the Department of Vet-
 erans Affairs (“VA”) regional office (“RO”) awarded him a
 30% disability rating for bronchitis, effective December
 1969, but denied service connection for his feet and ankle
 conditions. S.A. 2. 1 Mr. Hulsey submitted additional evi-
 dence in support of both claims. In March 1971, the RO
 determined that neither a higher disability rating for
 chronic bronchitis nor service connection for feet and ankle
 conditions was warranted. Mr. Hulsey did not appeal this
 decision. S.A. 2.
     In December 1996, Mr. Hulsey sought an increased dis-
 ability rating for chronic bronchitis and sought to reopen
 his service-connection claim for a foot condition. S.A. 2.
 The RO denied those claims in November 1997.

     1   “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix submit-
 ted with the government’s brief.
Case: 23-1153    Document: 47      Page: 3    Filed: 01/22/2024

 HULSEY v. MCDONOUGH                                        3

     In February 1999, Mr. Hulsey submitted a claim for
 service connection for several conditions. S.A. 2. In De-
 cember 2001, a VA hearing officer denied claims relating to
 feet and ankle conditions, reasoning that because
 Mr. Hulsey had not appealed the March 1971 denial of his
 claim within one year, the May 1970 rating became a final
 decision and “new and material evidence had not been sub-
 mitted sufficient to reopen his claim.” S.A. 2–3. Regarding
 Mr. Hulsey’s bronchitis claim, the hearing officer increased
 his disability rating from 30% to 100%, effective December
 1996. 2 S.A. 3.
     In December 2010, the VA notified Mr. Hulsey that it
 was working to address some of his claims related to the
 rating decisions of 1970, 1971, and 1997, among other is-
 sues. In December 2011, the VA determined there had
 been clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in the Decem-
 ber 2001 hearing officer’s decision that had increased his
 disability rating to 100%. S.A. 3. Due to that error, the VA
 reduced Mr. Hulsey’s bronchitis disability rating from
 100% to 60%. S.A. 3. In addition, the VA granted a total
 disability based on individual unemployability (“TDIU”)
 rating, effective December 1996. S.A. 3. The VA also
 granted service connection on a secondary basis for degen-
 erative changes, bilateral ankles, at 10%, effective Febru-
 ary 1999. S.A. 3.
     Mr. Hulsey appealed the December 2011 decision to the
 Board. In February 2016, the Board denied his appeal.
 S.A. 135–51. As relevant here, the Board upheld the re-
 duction of Mr. Hulsey’s disability rating for bronchitis from
 100 to 60% due to CUE in the December 2001 rating deci-
 sion. S.A. 141–45. Regarding the service-connected

     2   Mr. Hulsey’s effort to seek an earlier effective date
 for his bronchitis disability rating was previously before
 this court. We dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
 Hulsey v. McDonald, 625 F. App’x 546 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Case: 23-1153     Document: 47     Page: 4    Filed: 01/22/2024

 4                                      HULSEY v. MCDONOUGH

 condition of degenerative changes, right and left ankles,
 the Board determined that Mr. Hulsey was not entitled to
 an effective date earlier than February 1999. S.A. 141. For
 his TDIU claim, the Board concluded that Mr. Hulsey did
 not meet requirements to establish a TDIU prior to Decem-
 ber 1996, because he had worked full time on his father’s
 farm and had been on his father’s payroll until 1997. S.A.
 146–48. Mr. Hulsey appealed to the Veterans Court.
      In September 2021, the Veterans Court affirmed in
 part and vacated in part the Board’s decision. S.A. 1–10.
 The court affirmed the December 2011 reduction in Mr.
 Hulsey’s disability rating, reasoning that although he had
 argued that 38 C.F.R. § 3.951(b) required reversal of the
 reduction in rating, that regulation was inapplicable to the
 facts of his case. S.A. 8. The court vacated and remanded
 to the Board regarding the bilateral ankle condition, con-
 cluding that “the Board provided an inadequate statement
 of reasons or bases for its determination that February 10,
 1999, was the appropriate effective date for the grant of
 service connection.” S.A. 5. The court also found a remand
 warranted relative to TDIU “for the Board to readjudicate
 Mr. Hulsey’s entitlement to extraschedular TDIU, prior to
 December 1996,” finding that the Board’s “statement of
 reasons or bases is insufficient for judicial review.” S.A. 7.
 The court noted that although Mr. Hulsey had been em-
 ployed on his father’s farm, the Board had not considered
 whether his employment was substantially gainful or more
 than marginal. S.A. 7.
     Mr. Hulsey filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the
 alternative, a panel decision. S.A. 78–99. The court denied
 his motion for reconsideration and adopted the single-judge
 order as the decision of the court, additionally denying full-
 court review. S.A. 100–101, 123. Mr. Hulsey appeals.
                         DISCUSSION
    This court has limited jurisdiction to review Veterans
 Court decisions. We have “jurisdiction to review and decide
Case: 23-1153    Document: 47      Page: 5    Filed: 01/22/2024

 HULSEY v. MCDONOUGH                                        5

 any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or
 any interpretation thereof . . . , and to interpret constitu-
 tional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and
 necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). We lack ju-
 risdiction to review “a challenge to a factual determina-
 tion,” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to
 the facts of a particular case,” unless presented with a con-
 stitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2).
     Although he makes several arguments, Mr. Hulsey
 presents two main issues on appeal. We lack jurisdiction
 over each issue.
     First, Mr. Hulsey disputes the finality of the 1970 and
 1971 rating decisions and the medical evidence on which
 the VA relied. For example, he raises issues with the ade-
 quacy of a January 1971 medical examination report, Ap-
 pellant’s Br. 31–37, and disputes whether he presented
 new and material evidence about his conditions to the VA
 within one year of the 1970 rating decision, id. at 37–49.
 Because these are factual contentions, we are unable to
 consider these arguments. 3 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
     In support of this argument, Mr. Hulsey asserts 38
 C.F.R. § 3.951(b). The Veterans Court determined, how-
 ever, that Mr. Hulsey’s bronchitis “has not been continu-
 ously rated at 100% for 20 or more years,” so “the potential
 applicability of § 3.951(b) was not reasonably raised by the
 record.” S.A. 8. For that reason, the Veterans Court held
 that “the Board did not err by not addressing [§ 3.951(b)].”
 S.A. 8. Because the Veterans Court did not interpret that
 regulation in its decision and at most applied the

     3   Notably, the Veterans Court previously considered
 and rejected these arguments. See Hulsey v. Shinseki, No.
 11-642, 2013 WL 5422976, at *3–5 (Vet. App. Sept. 30,
 2013) (as amended).
Case: 23-1153     Document: 47       Page: 6    Filed: 01/22/2024

 6                                       HULSEY v. MCDONOUGH

 regulation to the facts of Mr. Hulsey’s case, we lack juris-
 diction over this issue. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
      Second, Mr. Hulsey makes a constitutional due process
 argument. Appellant’s Br. 53–68. Mr. Hulsey asserts, as
 he did before the Veterans Court, that the VA unlawfully
 withheld or unreasonably delayed issuing statements of
 the case in response to several of his notices of disagree-
 ment, resulting in due process violations. Id. at 53–68; see
 S.A. 40–41 (first citing Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d
 1290, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009); and then citing 38 C.F.R.
 § 20.1000). Mr. Hulsey also argues the Veterans Court
 erred by failing to address his due process arguments. The
 Veterans Court recognized Mr. Hulsey’s due process argu-
 ments, S.A. 4, and addressed them by holding that they
 were “either undeveloped or insufficient to demonstrate
 prejudicial error in the decision on appeal,” S.A. 9. Regard-
 ing Mr. Hulsey’s argument that the Veterans Court erred
 in finding no prejudicial error in the Board’s decision, we
 lack jurisdiction to review such a factual finding. Conway
 v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explain-
 ing that the effect of the rule of prejudicial error for a given
 case is beyond our jurisdiction).
                          CONCLUSION
    We have considered Mr. Hulsey’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. Because his appeal
 does not raise issues within this court’s limited jurisdiction,
 we dismiss.
                         DISMISSED
                             COSTS
 No costs.