Court Opinion

ID: 9882141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 15:01:29.503263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:52.244601
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1905    Document: 13     Page: 1   Filed: 10/05/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   ARTHUR GARCIA,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2023-1905
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 22-1713, Judge Michael P. Allen.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: October 5, 2023
                 ______________________

    ARTHUR GARCIA, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

     MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
 sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI,
 PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

     Before DYK, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1905     Document: 13     Page: 2    Filed: 10/05/2023

 2                                      GARCIA v. MCDONOUGH

 PER CURIAM.
      Arthur Garcia, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, proceed-
 ing pro se, appeals from a decision issued of the United
 States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
 Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the
 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying entitlement
 to an initial disability rating greater than 10% for (1) limi-
 tation of extension of the right hip, and (2) degenerative
 arthritis of the right hip. The Veterans Court also declined
 to address Mr. Garcia’s clear and unmistakable error
 (“CUE”) claim, holding that CUE claims must be first
 raised at the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Of-
 fice (“RO”). Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Garcia’s
 appeal, we dismiss.
                        BACKGROUND
      Mr. Garcia served on active duty in the United States
 Air Force from August 1962 to August 1964 and from Au-
 gust 1990 to August 1991 and for many years in the Air
 Force Reserve. Garcia v. McDonough, No. 22-1713, 2023
 WL 153405, at *1 (Vet. App. Jan. 11, 2023). Mr. Garcia has
 litigated his disability claims relating to his right hip for
 several years before the RO and the Board. Service con-
 nection was granted to a limited extent and eventually, in
 this case, the Board granted Mr. Garcia a total disability
 rating based on individual unemployability, effective May
 1, 2012. Id. In the same case, the Board denied Mr. Garcia
 entitlement to an initial disability rating greater than 10%
 for (1) limitation of extension of the right hip, and (2) de-
 generative arthritis of the right hip. Id. Mr. Garcia ap-
 pealed, and the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s
 decision, finding that Mr. Garcia failed to carry his burden
 to establish error in the Board’s decision. Id. This appeal
 followed.
Case: 23-1905     Document: 13       Page: 3   Filed: 10/05/2023

 GARCIA v. MCDONOUGH                                          3

                          DISCUSSION
     The jurisdiction of this Court to review the decisions of
 the Veterans Court is limited by statute, permitting us to
 review only “the validity of a decision of the [Veterans]
 Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or
 any interpretation thereof.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); Flores-
 Vazquez v. McDonough, 996 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
 2021). “Except to the extent that an appeal under this
 chapter presents a constitutional issue,” we “may not re-
 view (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a
 challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a
 particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
     In his briefing on appeal, Mr. Garcia has raised no co-
 herent argument that the Veterans Court failed to properly
 interpret a statute or regulation or address a constitutional
 question. We have examined the Veterans Court decision
 and found no issue within our jurisdiction as to the rating
 decisions. As to Mr. Garcia’s CUE claim regarding a 1992
 denial of service connection, that issue, as the Veterans
 Court noted below, must be first raised with the RO. Just
 as the Veterans Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the
 issue in the first instance, we do as well. Garcia, 2023 WL
 153405, at *2.
     Because the Veterans Court opinion did not elaborate
 on the meaning of any statute, regulation, or constitutional
 question in its decision, we lack jurisdiction.
                         DISMISSED
                             COSTS
 No costs.