Court Opinion

ID: 6316306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-22 17:00:58.980747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:43.563424
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-1618    Document: 46     Page: 1   Filed: 02/18/2022

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  HENRY F. RATLIFF,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2021-1618
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 19-6568, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
                 ______________________

                Decided: February 18, 2022
                 ______________________

     MEGHAN GENTILE, Veterans Legal Advocacy Group, Ar-
 lington, VA, argued for claimant-appellant. Also repre-
 sented by HAROLD HAMILTON HOFFMAN, III.

     SARAH E. KRAMER, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
 sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, MARTIN F.
 HOCKEY, JR.; EVAN SCOTT GRANT, Y. KEN LEE, Office of
Case: 21-1618     Document: 46     Page: 2    Filed: 02/18/2022

 2                                     RATLIFF   v. MCDONOUGH

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

     Before HUGHES, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
       Henry Ratliff appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals
 for Veterans Claims. The Veterans Court affirmed a deci-
 sion of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, denying Mr. Rat-
 liff’s claims for disability compensation due to tinnitus. On
 appeal, Mr. Ratliff argues that the Veterans Court misap-
 plied its own precedent regarding credibility determina-
 tions and erred in making its harmless error
 determination. Because Mr. Ratliff’s arguments both in-
 volve an application of law to fact, they are beyond our ju-
 risdiction to consider. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); King v.
 Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accord-
 ingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
                        DISMISSED
 No costs.