Court Opinion

ID: 9372410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 16:01:06.67316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:35.207711
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1918    Document: 24     Page: 1   Filed: 02/21/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                 LONNIE B. SORRELL,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2022-1918
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-8853, Judge Coral Wong Pi-
 etsch.
                 ______________________

                Decided: February 21, 2023
                 ______________________

    LONNIE B. SORRELL, Chandler, AZ, pro se.

     BORISLAV KUSHNIR, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON, CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG,
 Y. KEN LEE, Office of General Counsel, United States De-
 partment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 22-1918     Document: 24      Page: 2    Filed: 02/21/2023

 2                                     SORRELL   v. MCDONOUGH

                   ______________________

     Before CHEN, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Lonnie Sorrell appeals a final decision of the United
 States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans
 Court) affirming a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
 peals (Board) that denied his claim for entitlement to a
 compensable disability rating for a service-connected right
 wrist cyst. Because Mr. Sorrell’s arguments are beyond the
 limited jurisdiction of our court, we dismiss the appeal.
                         BACKGROUND
     Mr. Sorrell served in the United States Air Force from
 1969 to 1973. SAppx. 53. 1 His separation examination in-
 dicated that he had “skin diseases.” SAppx. 45–52. In
 April 1973, Mr. Sorrell filed a claim for service connection
 for a right wrist cyst, and although the Department of Vet-
 erans Affairs (VA) granted service connection, it assigned
 a non-compensable rating for a benign skin growth.
 SAppx. 58; see also 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. Mr. Sorrell did not
 appeal this decision, and it became final.
     In 2007, Mr. Sorrell sought a compensable disability
 rating for (1) his right wrist cyst and (2) arthritis secondary
 to the cyst. SAppx. 54–57. In May 2008, a VA Regional
 Office (RO) continued the non-compensable rating for his
 cyst and determined that his arthritis was not service-con-
 nected. SAppx. 59–62. Mr. Sorrell appealed to the Board.
 Over the course of several remands from the Board, Mr.
 Sorrell underwent multiple medical examinations. See
 Sorrell v. McDonough, No. 20-8853, 2022 WL 969961, at
 *1–3 (Vet. App. Mar. 31, 2022). In July 2020, a VA

      1   All SAppx. citations herein refer to the appendix
 filed concurrently with Appellee’s brief.
Case: 22-1918     Document: 24     Page: 3    Filed: 02/21/2023

 SORRELL   v. MCDONOUGH                                      3

 examiner issued a medical opinion concluding Mr. Sorrell’s
 right wrist cyst (1) did not impact gainful employment, and
 (2) did not cause degenerative changes to the wrist or hand,
 such as his arthritis. SAppx. 29–33. In August 2020, the
 RO issued a supplemental statement of the case denying a
 compensable rating for the right wrist cyst. 2 Sorrell, 2022
 WL 969961, at *3.
      Mr. Sorrell again appealed to the Board, and on No-
 vember 30, 2020, the Board denied a compensable rating
 for his right wrist cyst. SAppx. 13–20. After reviewing the
 medical evidence of record indicating his right wrist cyst
 “was intermittent, not symptomatic, and not a reason to
 have had it surgically removed or [to have] been denied em-
 ployment post-service . . . . [and thus] was/is inconsequen-
 tial,” the Board concluded that “the weight of the evidence
 is against a compensable rating for [Mr. Sorrell’s right
 wrist cyst].” SAppx. 19–20. However, the Board remanded
 Mr. Sorrell’s arthritis claim for further development be-
 cause the medical opinions of record did not adequately ad-
 dress certain private treatment records. SAppx. 20–26.
      Mr. Sorrell appealed to the Veterans Court. The Vet-
 erans Court affirmed the Board’s denial, finding “Mr. Sor-
 rell identifie[d] no evidence that could possibly be favorable
 to his claim for a compensable rating for right wrist cyst.”
 Sorrell, 2022 WL 969961, at *5. The Veterans Court then
 rejected Mr. Sorrell’s argument that his 1972 separation
 examination was incomplete for failing to diagnose, at that
 time, his subsequent bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome
 (CTS) and arthritis diagnoses. Id. The Veterans Court also

     2    Mr. Sorrell separately sought a compensable disa-
 bility rating for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS),
 and in April 2019, the Board determined that he was enti-
 tled to a disability rating for CTS at 10 percent between
 May 2012 and March 2014 and at a higher disability rating
 after March 2014. See SAppx. 36–40.
Case: 22-1918     Document: 24      Page: 4    Filed: 02/21/2023

 4                                     SORRELL   v. MCDONOUGH

 rejected Mr. Sorrell’s argument that his right wrist cyst
 should have been assigned a compensable rating under 38
 C.F.R. §§ 3.324 or 3.321, finding Mr. Sorrell did not identify
 any evidence suggesting his cyst “interfered with normal
 employability” or “is so exceptional or unusual that it ren-
 ders application of the regular schedular ratings impracti-
 cal.” Id. (first citing 38 C.F.R. § 3.324; and then citing 38
 C.F.R. § 3.321). Finally, the Veterans Court found that Mr.
 Sorrell did not identify any evidence suggesting that the
 Board made its determinations based on bias, rather than
 record evidence. Id. 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). While we have jurisdiction to “re-
 view the legal determinations of the Veterans Court,” we
 “may not review the Veterans Court’s factual findings or
 its application of law to facts absent a constitutional issue.”
 Singleton v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1332, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
 see also 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Thus, where an appeal chal-
 lenges factual determinations by the Veterans Court, we
 lack subject matter jurisdiction and dismissal is required.
     Mr. Sorrell argues that the Board erroneously denied a
 compensable rating for his right wrist cyst. See Appellant’s
 Br. 1, 4–5. 3 That argument, however, is beyond our juris-
 diction to consider. See Middleton v. Shinseki, 727 F.3d
 1172, 1177–78 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (explaining that determin-
 ing whether a higher disability rating is warranted “re-
 quires an application of law to fact that is beyond our
 jurisdiction”); see also Sorrell, 2022 WL 969961, at *4–5;
 SAppx. 19–20.

     3    Because Mr. Sorrell filed his brief via Form 13 and
 a separately-paginated narrative, citations herein to Mr.
 Sorrell’s opening brief refer to the ECF pagination therefor.
Case: 22-1918     Document: 24     Page: 5    Filed: 02/21/2023

 SORRELL   v. MCDONOUGH                                      5

     Mr. Sorrell also argues that the Board’s decision (i) was
 tainted by bias or (ii) “fail[ed] to apply or misappl[ied]” 38
 C.F.R. §§ 3.321 and 3.324. See Appellant’s Br. 5. Because
 the Veterans Court found that he did not provide evidence
 for “the necessary factual predicate” to support his argu-
 ments, see Sorrell, 2022 WL 969961, at *5, Mr. Sorrell is
 challenging the Veteran Court’s factual determination, or
 at most its application of law to the facts. Thus, this chal-
 lenge is also beyond our jurisdiction. 4           38 U.S.C.
 § 7292(d)(2).
      Lastly, we do not have jurisdiction to consider Mr. Sor-
 rell’s argument that his separation examination was in-
 complete. See Appellant’s Br. 7. We have repeatedly held
 that “the sufficiency of a medical opinion is a matter be-
 yond our jurisdictional reach, because the underlying ques-
 tion is one of fact.” Prinkey v. Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375,
 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
    Because the only issues here involve challenges to the
 Board’s fact finding regarding the evidence supporting a
 compensable disability rating for his right wrist cyst, the
 adequacy of his separation examination, and the Veterans

     4    To the extent that Mr. Sorrell argues that the Vet-
 erans Court misconstrued 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321 and 3.324 by
 failing to consider the compensability of his right wrist cyst
 in combination with his CTS and arthritis claims, see Ap-
 pellant’s Br. 5–7, we disagree. Mr. Sorrell’s CTS was sep-
 arately awarded a compensable rating, and thus it may not
 be combined with his right wrist cyst. See 38 C.F.R.
 § 3.324. Moreover, Mr. Sorrell’s arthritis claim, secondary
 to his right wrist cyst, is on remand to the Board and not
 properly before us.
Case: 22-1918     Document: 24      Page: 6   Filed: 02/21/2023

 6                                     SORRELL   v. MCDONOUGH

 Court’s application of law to fact, we lack jurisdiction. 5 38
 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
                         CONCLUSION
      We have considered Mr. Sorrell’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. We therefore dismiss Mr.
 Sorrell’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. However, we note
 that on November 30, 2020 the Board remanded to the VA
 for further examination of outstanding VA and/or private
 treatment records related to Mr. Sorrell’s arthritis claim,
 and nothing in this Opinion forecloses Mr. Sorrell from pur-
 suing a VA determination and any appeals that would is-
 sue from it.
                        DISMISSED
                            COSTS
 No costs.

     5    Although Mr. Sorrell alleges a constitutional viola-
 tion, he provides no detail or support for his claim. See Ap-
 pellant’s Br. at 2, 4. We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Sorrell’s
 claim, as it is “constitutional in name only.” Helfer v. West,
 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999).