Court Opinion

ID: 9403543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:02:42.911038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:07.867850
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2226    Document: 16    Page: 1   Filed: 06/09/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                LAWRENCE E. WOZNICK,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

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

                        2022-2226
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-7181, Judge Coral Wong Pi-
 etsch.
                 ______________________

                   Decided: June 9, 2023
                  ______________________

    LAWRENCE E. WOZNICK, Mogadore, OH, pro se.

     LAURA OFFENBACHER ARADI, Civil Division, Commer-
 cial Litigation Branch, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee.      Also
 represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN,
 PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________
Case: 22-2226    Document: 16     Page: 2   Filed: 06/09/2023

 2                                   WOZNICK   v. MCDONOUGH

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, STOLL and CUNNINGHAM,
                      Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Lawrence E. Woznick appeals a decision of the United
 States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacating the
 Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of entitlement to a
 higher level of special monthly compensation (SMC) and
 remanding for the Board to consider whether he is entitled
 to a higher SMC. Because we do not have jurisdiction to
 hear Mr. Woznick’s appeal, we dismiss.
                       BACKGROUND
     Mr. Woznick served in the Marine Corps from July
 1969 to July 1972. As of June 2020, the Board awarded
 Mr. Woznick SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(l) and separately
 under § 1114(s) based on his 60% disability rating for
 prostatitis and his 100% disability rating for PTSD. The
 Board denied, however, Mr. Woznick’s request for higher
 SMC under § 1114(r) because it found he did not meet the
 requisite criteria under § 1114(o) or qualify for the
 intermediate rate between § 1114(n) and (o) plus the rating
 under § 1114(k). App’x 116–17. Specifically, the Board
 found that his disabilities do not combine to a SMC rate
 higher than § 1114(l). App’x 117.
     Mr. Woznick appealed to the Veterans Court. The
 Veterans Court determined the Board’s denial of SMC
 under § 1114(r) was erroneous because the Board did not
 adequately explain why Mr. Woznick did not satisfy the
 requirements under § 1114(o), including whether he was
 entitled to a higher rating under § 1114(o) based on two or
 more ratings under § 1114(l). App’x 5. Regarding the
 Board’s award under § 1114(l), the Veterans Court
 determined it was unclear whether the Board’s award was
 based on a combination of Mr. Woznick’s PTSD and
 prostatitis disabilities or whether each disability rating
 would independently qualify for SMC under § 1114(l).
Case: 22-2226     Document: 16      Page: 3    Filed: 06/09/2023

 WOZNICK   v. MCDONOUGH                                       3

 App’x 5. Finally, the Veterans Court declined to reverse
 the Board’s decision because the Board did not consider
 whether Mr. Woznick’s conditions satisfied other
 requirements under § 1114(r). App’x 5. As a result, the
 Veterans Court held it could not make the factual findings
 necessary to determine whether Mr. Woznick qualified for
 heightened SMC and accordingly remanded for the Board
 to make those findings in the first instance. App’x 6. Mr.
 Woznick appeals.
                          DISCUSSION
     Our jurisdiction over decisions of the Veterans Court is
 limited. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we may review “the
 validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of
 law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation
 thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter)
 that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the
 decision.” Except with respect to constitutional issues, we
 “may not review (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).
      On appeal, Mr. Woznick argues the Veterans Court
 erred in declining to award him a higher-rated SMC be-
 cause he has two separate claims based on separate disa-
 bilities that the Board improperly combined, resulting in
 compensation at a lower rate than he is entitled to under
 § 1114(r). Appellant’s Informal Br. at 2. Mr. Woznick’s ar-
 guments challenge only the Board’s determination that he
 is not entitled to a higher SMC rating because he does meet
 the factual predicates for that rating. Because we lack ju-
 risdiction to review “a challenge to a law or regulation as
 applied to the facts,” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), we do have not
 have jurisdiction over Mr. Woznick’s appeal. Moreover, the
 Veterans Court’s remand order is not a final order and the
 narrow criteria justifying review of an interlocutory order
 are not present in this case. See Williams v. Principi, 275
 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The question of whether
Case: 22-2226   Document: 16      Page: 4   Filed: 06/09/2023

 4                                  WOZNICK   v. MCDONOUGH

 Mr. Woznick qualifies for a higher SMC rating is properly
 back before the Board. Because we lack jurisdiction, we
 dismiss Mr. Woznick’s appeal.
                      DISMISSED
                          COSTS
 No costs.