Court Opinion

ID: 9892556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 15:01:40.530142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:29.815165
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1482    Document: 32     Page: 1   Filed: 10/24/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                FREDERICK C. FERMIN,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2023-1482
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 22-7258, Judge William S. Green-
 berg.
                 ______________________

                Decided: October 24, 2023
                 ______________________

    FREDERICK C. FERMIN, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

     ROBERT R. KIEPURA, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________
Case: 23-1482     Document: 32     Page: 2    Filed: 10/24/2023

 2                                     FERMIN v. MCDONOUGH

     Before CHEN, STOLL, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Frederick C. Fermin appeals from an order of the
 United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Vet-
 erans Court”) denying his petition for extraordinary relief.
 Fermin v. McDonough, No. 22-7258, 2023 WL 234755 (Vet.
 App. Jan. 18, 2023) (“Petition Order”). For the reasons dis-
 cussed below, we affirm the Veterans Court’s decision re-
 garding jurisdiction and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Mr.
 Fermin’s appeal as it relates to his challenges to factual
 determinations or the law as applied to the facts.
                      I.   BACKGROUND
     Mr. Fermin served in the U.S. Army and received ser-
 vice-connected disability ratings. See S. App. 3. 1 After a
 series of proceedings concerning Mr. Fermin’s ratings, the
 Veterans Court remanded the matter to the Board of Vet-
 erans’ Appeals (“Board”) to address a January 2004 medi-
 cal record and how it may relate to Mr. Fermin’s service-
 connected disability ratings. See S. App. 3; App. 19–22. 2
 In September 2021, the Board addressed the medical rec-
 ord and denied Mr. Fermin’s claim for an earlier effective
 date for special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C.
 § 1114(p) at a rate intermediate between subsections (l)
 and (m) for additional independent fifty percent disabili-
 ties. See App. 19, 22–25; S. App. 3. Mr. Fermin appealed,
 and the Veterans Court issued a series of decisions. See
 Case No. 21-7853 (“the 21-7853 matter”). First, the Veter-
 ans Court affirmed the Board’s decision, explaining that

       1 “S. App.” refers to the supplemental appendix at-
 tached to Appellee’s Informal Brief, ECF No. 22.
     2   “App.” refers to materials attached to Mr. Fermin’s
 Informal Opening Brief, ECF No. 16. Any citations to these
 materials, this docket entry, or to Mr. Fermin’s Informal
 Opening Brief refer to the ECF page number.
Case: 23-1482    Document: 32     Page: 3    Filed: 10/24/2023

 FERMIN v. MCDONOUGH                                       3

 Mr. Fermin failed to show that the Board erred in its treat-
 ment of the medical record. See Fermin v. McDonough, No.
 21-7853, 2022 WL 1565248, at *1–2 (Vet. App. May 18,
 2022) (“Decision”); see also S. App. 2–5. Next, Mr. Fermin
 filed multiple motions leading to the Veterans Court issu-
 ing a panel order, denying the motion to reconsider the ear-
 lier single-judge decision and confirming that earlier
 decision remained the decision of the Veterans Court. See
 Fermin v. McDonough, No. 21-7853, 2022 WL 2046114, at
 *1 (Vet. App. June 7, 2022) (“Panel Order”). Mr. Fermin
 subsequently filed a motion for full court review, which the
 Veterans Court denied. See Fermin v. McDonough, No. 21-
 7853, 2022 WL 2867100, at *1 (Vet. App. July 21, 2022).
     Mr. Fermin filed a petition for extraordinary relief
 from the “false judgment” entered in the 21-7853 matter,
 and the Veterans Court denied the petition. 3 See Petition
 Order at *1; S. App. 30–31. In denying the petition, the
 Veterans Court explained that its “writ authority is limited
 to issuing writs in aid of the [Veterans] Court’s jurisdic-
 tion.” Petition Order at *1; see 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The
 Veterans Court further explained that it “already decided”
 the challenge raised by Mr. Fermin “first as a single-judge
 decision, and then as a panel decision” in the 21-7853 mat-
 ter. Petition Order at *1. “Though [Mr. Fermin] disa-
 gree[d] with the outcome of the judgment entered under
 docket number 21-7853,” the Veterans Court could not “is-
 sue a writ or provide the relief” sought by Mr. Fermin in
 the 22-7258 matter. Id. After denying Mr. Fermin’s peti-
 tion, the Veterans Court entered judgment in the 22-7258
 matter in February 2023. See App. 3. Mr. Fermin now ap-
 peals.

    3   The petition was denied in an order docketed under
 Case No. 22-7258 (“the 22-7258 matter”).
Case: 23-1482    Document: 32      Page: 4    Filed: 10/24/2023

 4                                      FERMIN v. MCDONOUGH

                       II. DISCUSSION
     As a preliminary matter, Mr. Fermin appears to at-
 tempt to appeal from the judgment entered in the 21-7853
 matter. See Appellant’s Informal Opening Br. 15–16; ECF
 No. 16 at 5. To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed
 within sixty days of the entry of the Veterans Court’s judg-
 ment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b), 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). The
 parties agree that Mr. Fermin did not timely appeal the 21-
 7853 matter to this court. See Appellant’s Informal Open-
 ing Br. 15; ECF No. 16 at 5; Appellee’s Informal Br. 11–12.
 Although Mr. Fermin appears to ask this court to excuse
 his lateness due to mail and computer issues, see Appel-
 lant’s Informal Opening Br. 15–16; ECF No. 16 at 5, we
 cannot do so because the statutorily prescribed time for fil-
 ing appeals from the Veterans Court to this court is man-
 datory and jurisdictional. See Henderson v. Shinseki, 562
 U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011); Wagner v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d
 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we do not have
 jurisdiction over any appeal regarding the 21-7853 matter.
     Regarding the 22-7258 matter, Mr. Fermin appeals
 from the Veterans Court’s denial of his petition for extraor-
 dinary relief from the alleged “false judgment” entered in
 the 21-7853 matter. See Petition Order at *1; ECF No. 1 at
 5–6; ECF No. 16 at 5–6. In the underlying order, the Vet-
 erans Court explained that Mr. Fermin’s petition raised a
 challenge to an issue “already decided” by the Veterans
 Court in the 21-7853 matter. See Petition Order at *1. The
 Veterans Court explained that its writ authority did not
 extend to Mr. Fermin’s request to effectively reconsider the
 21-7853 matter because the Veterans Court’s “writ author-
 ity is limited to issuing writs in aid of the [Veterans]
 Court’s jurisdiction.” Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). To the
 extent Mr. Fermin argues that the Veterans Court erred in
 determining that it lacked jurisdiction, and thereby writ
 authority, we disagree.
Case: 23-1482    Document: 32      Page: 5    Filed: 10/24/2023

 FERMIN v. MCDONOUGH                                        5

      Under the All Writs Act, the Veterans Court “may issue
 all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [its] respective
 jurisdiction[].” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). We review de novo
 whether the Veterans Court “properly declined to assert ju-
 risdiction.” Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed.
 Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). The Veterans Court correctly
 determined here that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Fer-
 min’s challenge to the 21-7853 matter because its jurisdic-
 tion is limited to review of decisions from the Board, see 38
 U.S.C. § 7252(a), and the 21-7853 matter was resolved by
 the Veterans Court in a single-judge decision and panel or-
 der. See Decision at *1–2; Panel Order at *1; see also Mor-
 ris v. Shulkin, 677 F. App’x 681, 681–82 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
 (affirming judgment of the Veterans Court, explaining that
 “this court has already determined, in a previous appeal,
 that it lacks jurisdiction over [Appellant’s] primary argu-
 ment and that the constitutional issue he raises lacks
 merit”). Therefore, we affirm the Veterans Court’s decision
 regarding jurisdiction. See, e.g., Blaney v. McDonald, 590
 F. App’x 986, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Jackson v. Wilkie, 839
 F. App’x 463, 465 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
     Mr. Fermin’s remaining challenges to the Veterans
 Court’s denial of his petition for extraordinary relief fall
 outside of our jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction to review deci-
 sions of the Veterans Court is limited by statute. See 38
 U.S.C. § 7292. We have jurisdiction to review “all relevant
 questions of law,” but lack jurisdiction to review “a chal-
 lenge to a factual determination,” or “a challenge to a law
 or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case,”
 except to the extent that those challenges raise a constitu-
 tional issue. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d).
     Mr. Fermin raises a series of arguments that merely
 challenge either the law as applied to the facts or factual
 determinations made by the Veterans Court and the Board
 in the 21-7853 matter. Mr. Fermin primarily argues that
 the Board fraudulently concealed the January 2004 medi-
 cal record and violated various statutes and regulations,
Case: 23-1482     Document: 32      Page: 6    Filed: 10/24/2023

 6                                      FERMIN v. MCDONOUGH

 and the Veterans Court failed to rectify these issues in the
 21-7853 matter. See, e.g., Appellant’s Informal Opening
 Br. 15–16; ECF No. 16 at 5–6; Appellant’s Informal Reply
 Br. 1–3; ECF No. 29 at 2–3. As we have explained, the 21-
 7853 matter is not on appeal here, and we lack jurisdiction
 over any challenge to that matter. To the extent Mr. Fer-
 min argues that the Veterans Court in the 22-7258 matter
 erred in its assessment of such underlying facts, we like-
 wise lack jurisdiction to review any such factual determi-
 nations. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d); see also Beasley v.
 Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“We may
 not review the factual merits of the veteran’s claim,” and
 “we do not interfere with the CAVC’s role as the final ap-
 pellate arbiter of the facts underlying a veteran’s claim[.]”).
     Mr. Fermin also argues that the Veterans Court vio-
 lated a series of statutes and regulations, including 38
 U.S.C. §§ 110, 7112 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.957. See Appellant’s
 Informal Opening Br. 15. However, in its order denying
 Mr. Fermin’s petition for extraordinary relief, the Veterans
 Court neither relied on nor interpreted the statutes and
 regulations raised in Mr. Fermin’s briefing. See Petitioner
 Order at *1. At most, Mr. Fermin challenges the applica-
 tion of a statute or regulation to the facts of his case. We
 therefore lack jurisdiction over any such argument. See
 Githens v. Shinseki, 676 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
 (“We have no jurisdiction over an issue of interpretation
 that does not exist.”); 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d).
     Mr. Fermin further raises an alleged constitutional due
 process violation. See Appellant’s Informal Opening Br. 15.
 However, Mr. Fermin’s purported due process challenge
 contests the merits of the Veterans Court’s and the Board’s
 decisions in the 21-7853 matter over which we lack juris-
 diction. See id. (arguing that the Veterans Court “ap-
 proved” of the Board’s “lying to the [Veterans] Court” about
 the January 2004 medical record, “which is in violation [of]
 due process of law”). Moreover, Mr. Fermin’s due process
 challenge is constitutional in name only and therefore not
Case: 23-1482      Document: 32    Page: 7    Filed: 10/24/2023

 FERMIN v. MCDONOUGH                                        7

 reviewable by this court. See Flores v. Nicholson, 476 F.3d
 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]he appellant’s characteri-
 zation of [the] question as constitutional in nature does not
 confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.”)
 (cleaned up).
                III. MOTIONS AND OTHER FILINGS
     Mr. Fermin moves “for leave to restate [a] claim for
 brain damage . . . based on new evidence,” ECF No. 19 at 1
 (emphases removed), and for leave to “submit proof . . . [of
 a] diagnosis of brain damage,” ECF No. 24 at 1. In both
 motions, Mr. Fermin appears to seek to submit alleged new
 medical evidence for our consideration. See ECF No. 19 at
 1–2; ECF No. 24 at 1–2. We deny these motions raising
 challenges to factual determinations, recognizing that we
 lack jurisdiction to review Mr. Fermin’s alleged new evi-
 dence. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d).
     Additionally, Mr. Fermin asks this court to “enforce”
 our judgment and mandate in Mr. Fermin’s previous ap-
 peal, Appeal No. 20-1680. ECF No. 5 at 1–2; see also ECF
 No. 15 at 2 (“constru[ing] ECF No. 5 as additional continu-
 ation pages and appendix material to Mr. Fermin’s infor-
 mal opening brief”). In Appeal No. 20-1680, Mr. Fermin
 appealed from a Veterans Court decision affirming the
 Board’s finding of no clear and unmistakable error. See
 Fermin v. Wilkie, 816 F. App’x 488, 488–91 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
 This court dismissed Mr. Fermin’s appeal for lack of juris-
 diction, entered judgment, and issued a formal mandate.
 See id.; App. 42 (mandate), 44 (judgment). Mr. Fermin ar-
 gues that the Board and Appellee “failed to comply” with
 this court’s judgment and mandate, ECF No. 5 at 1–2, but
 offers no support for this allegation. Accordingly, we deny
 Mr. Fermin’s request.
     Lastly, Mr. Fermin moves “to expedite proceedings,”
 ECF No. 31 at 1, which is mooted by the issuance of this
 decision.
Case: 23-1482    Document: 32       Page: 8   Filed: 10/24/2023

 8                                     FERMIN v. MCDONOUGH

                      IV. CONCLUSION
     We have considered Mr. Fermin’s remaining argu-
 ments and find that they either do not raise issues within
 our jurisdiction or are unpersuasive. For the reasons dis-
 cussed above, we affirm the Veterans Court’s decision re-
 garding jurisdiction and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Mr.
 Fermin’s appeal as it relates to his challenges to factual
 determinations or the law as applied to the facts.
     AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND DISMISSED-IN-PART
                            COSTS
 No costs.