Court Opinion

ID: 9383898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 15:01:13.163091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:48.908309
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1897    Document: 18     Page: 1   Filed: 03/16/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                ROLANDO E. ONOFRE,
                  Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2022-1897
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 21-2711, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
 Jr.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: March 16, 2023
                 ______________________

    ROLANDO E. ONOFRE, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

     GALINA I. FOMENKOVA, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________
Case: 22-1897     Document: 18     Page: 2    Filed: 03/16/2023

 2                                     ONOFRE   v. MCDONOUGH

     Before DYK, LINN, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Rolando E. Onofre appeals a decision of the United
 States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans
 Court) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
 peals (Board) denying service connection for cardiovascular
 disease and hypertension. For the reasons below, we af-
 firm the Veterans Court’s decision as to Mr. Onofre’s car-
 diovascular disease claim, vacate and remand the Veterans
 Court’s decision as to the hypertension claim, and dismiss
 the parts of Mr. Onofre’s appeal over which we lack juris-
 diction.
                        BACKGROUND
      Mr. Onofre served in Vietnam from September 1970 to
 September 1971. Onofre v. McDonough, No. 21-2711, 2022
 WL 214508, at *1 (Vet. App. Jan. 25, 2022) (Veterans Court
 Decision). In 2008, he filed claims for cardiovascular dis-
 ease and hypertension. Id. After multiple examinations
 and remands, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) de-
 termined that Mr. Onofre had paroxysmal atrial fibrilla-
 tion (a cardiovascular disease) and hypertension but
 denied his claims as not service connected. Id. at *1–2. In
 its most recent decision, the Board explained that Mr. On-
 ofre was presumptively exposed to Agent Orange while
 serving in Vietnam and that service connection for post-
 traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was established, but the
 Board again denied service connection for cardiovascular
 disease and hypertension. Id. at *2. The Veterans Court
 affirmed, determining that the Board provided adequate
 reasons for its decision. Id. at *1, *4. This appeal followed.
                         DISCUSSION
      Our authority to review decisions of the Veterans Court
 is limited by statute. Goodman v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d 1383,
 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We may “review and decide any
 challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any
Case: 22-1897     Document: 18      Page: 3    Filed: 03/16/2023

 ONOFRE   v. MCDONOUGH                                        3

 interpretation thereof . . . and . . . interpret constitutional
 and statutory provisions” to the extent they are necessary
 to a decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). Except to the extent an
 appeal presents a constitutional issue, we may not review
 a challenge to a factual determination or the application of
 a law or regulation to the facts of a particular case. Id.
 § 7292(d)(2).
     Mr. Onofre appears to argue that the Veterans Court
 erred in interpreting 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) to exclude parox-
 ysmal atrial fibrillation and hypertension from presump-
 tive service connection for herbicide exposure. Informal
 Br. 1–2. We disagree. Section 3.309(e) lists certain dis-
 eases as presumptively service connected if the veteran
 was exposed to herbicides during active service, none of
 which include paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and hyperten-
 sion. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2021). The cardiovascular con-
 dition “ischemic heart disease” is listed, but “ischemic
 heart disease does not include hypertension.” Id. § 3.309(e)
 n.2. Thus, the Veterans Court properly interpreted
 § 3.309(e) to exclude paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and hy-
 pertension.
      After the Veterans Court’s decision, however, Congress
 amended the list of conditions for which service connection
 following herbicide exposure may be statutorily presumed
 to include hypertension. Honoring our PACT Act of 2022,
 Pub. L. No. 117-678, § 404, 136 Stat. 1759, 1782 (codified
 at 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(2)). In light of this recent change in
 the law, the Secretary recommends the court either: (1) af-
 firm or dismiss the appeal for both the paroxysmal atrial
 fibrillation and hypertension claims; or (2) affirm or dis-
 miss the paroxysmal atrial fibrillation claim but remand
 the hypertension claim for further consideration under the
 PACT Act. Informal Resp. Br. 7–8, 8 n.2. Under the cir-
 cumstances, we think the government’s second recommen-
 dation is appropriate, and thus we remand Mr. Onofre’s
 hypertension claim for further consideration in light of the
 amended statute.
Case: 22-1897    Document: 18       Page: 4   Filed: 03/16/2023

 4                                     ONOFRE   v. MCDONOUGH

     To the extent Mr. Onofre argues that the record shows
 he proved service connection (either directly or secondary)
 for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, hypertension, or any dis-
 ease listed in § 3.309(e), those arguments are directed to
 findings of fact or the application of regulation to the
 facts—arguments over which we lack jurisdiction. See 38
 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Mr. Onofre’s remaining arguments
 but find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the
 Veterans Court’s decision as to the paroxysmal atrial fibril-
 lation claim, vacate and remand the Veterans Court’s deci-
 sion as to the hypertension claim, and dismiss the parts of
 Mr. Onofre’s appeal over which we lack jurisdiction.
      AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART,
       DISMISSED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED
                            COSTS
 No costs.