Case: 21-2368 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 02/15/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BRADLEY J. DONAGHUE,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2021-2368
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20-496, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr.
______________________
Decided: February 15, 2023
______________________
MEGAN EILEEN HOFFMAN, Veterans Legal Advocacy
Group, Arlington, VA, for claimant-appellant. Also repre-
sented by HAROLD HAMILTON HOFFMAN, III.
ERIC JOHN SINGLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY; CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN,
Case: 21-2368 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 02/15/2023
2 DONAGHUE v. MCDONOUGH
Office of General Counsel, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before CHEN, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM
Bradley Donaghue appeals the final decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims deny-
ing his claim for service connection for an acquired psychi-
atric disorder. Because Mr. Donaghue fails to raise
arguments within the jurisdiction of our court, we dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction.
I
Mr. Donaghue served in the Air Force from August
1995 to February 2000. While deployed, Mr. Donaghue
stood an eighth of a mile away from a terrorist bombing in
Saudi Arabia and was knocked unconscious after hitting
his head on the tail cone of an F-16. He was evacuated to
Isa Air Base in a civilian car. After the incident, Mr.
Donaghue experienced anxiety when driving and periodic
nightmares. He also reported becoming emotional when
watching or listening to military-related content.
He first sought behavioral health treatment from a pri-
vate clinic in 2007, and later received treatment at the VA’s
La Crosse Vet Center from 2014 to 2016. In December
2016, he filed a claim for benefits for an acquired psychiat-
ric disorder. A 2017 VA psychiatric examination deter-
mined that he did not meet the diagnostic criteria for
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and instead diag-
nosed an unspecified anxiety disorder unrelated to his mil-
itary service. A month later, a VA regional office denied
service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition.
Mr. Donaghue filed a timely Notice of Disagreement
and underwent another psychiatric examination in 2019.
The 2019 examination found that Mr. Donaghue did not
Case: 21-2368 Document: 55 Page: 3 Filed: 02/15/2023
DONAGHUE v. MCDONOUGH 3
meet the diagnostic criteria for any mental disorder includ-
ing PTSD. The VA regional office denied benefits for an ac-
quired psychiatric disorder for lacking a PTSD diagnosis
and a nexus to service for anxiety disorder. Mr. Donaghue
appealed the rejection of a PTSD diagnosis to the Board.
In 2019, the Board denied service connection for an ac-
quired psychiatric disorder. The Board found the 2017 and
2019 VA medical examinations to be “competent and pro-
bative evidence. . . . [and that] the examiner[s] supported
their conclusions as to the lack of a PTSD diagnosis with a
thorough and cogent rationale, which included considera-
tion of the DSM-5, the Veteran’s statements, and his clini-
cal history.” J.A. 134. The Veterans Court affirmed.
Mr. Donaghue appeals.
II
We review de novo the Veterans Court’s interpretation
of law. Bazalo v. West,
150 F.3d 1380, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Unless an appeal from the Veterans Court decision pre-
sents a constitutional issue, this Court may not review “a
challenge to a factual determination,” or “a challenge to a
law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular
case.” 38 U.S.C § 7292(d)(2)(A)–(B).
A
Mr. Donaghue argues that the Board relied on inade-
quate medical determinations because the VA examina-
tions ignored his medical history and disregarded
inconsistencies between the examinations. He makes a
number of fact-based arguments. For instance, he suggests
that the 2017 VA examination relied on an inaccurate fac-
tual premise that he did not experience a traumatic event.
He also underscores that the 2017 examination diagnosed
an unspecified anxiety disorder, while the 2019 examina-
tion did not result in a diagnosis of any mental disorder
including PTSD. The Veterans Court reviewed these exam-
inations in the context of reviewing the Board’s decision.
Case: 21-2368 Document: 55 Page: 4 Filed: 02/15/2023
4 DONAGHUE v. MCDONOUGH
And the court explained in detail why it found the exami-
nations adequate and consistent. J.A. 4–7. Specifically, the
Board found “credible evidence that the Veteran was ex-
posed to traumatic events,” but no finding of compensable
diagnosis. J.A. 5.
Mr. Donaghue’s arguments as to the sufficiency of the
medical examination are beyond our jurisdiction, as they
simply challenge the factual determinations made by the
Board and the Veterans Court’s application of law to fact
when approving the Board’s determinations. Although Mr.
Donaghue asserts, without support, that these alleged in-
adequacies pose “pure legal errors,” Appellant’s Br. 19, we
have repeatedly held that “the sufficiency of a medical
opinion is a matter beyond our jurisdictional reach, be-
cause the underlying question is one of fact.” Prinkey v.
Shinseki,
735 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (listing dis-
missed cases arguing the sufficiency of medical opinions for
want of jurisdiction).
B
Mr. Donaghue next argues that the Veterans Court
erred by affirming the Board’s statutory violation in not
seeking relevant private records related to his PTSD claim.
See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(1) (requiring VA to make “reason-
able efforts to obtain relevant private records that claimant
adequately identifies to [VA]”). During the 2017 examina-
tion, Mr. Donaghue reported meeting with a private coun-
selor for two to three months in 2007. But the Board did
not seek Mr. Donaghue’s private medical records.
Mr. Donaghue admits that this argument was not
raised below. Appellant’s Br. 41. Moreover, we find that
Mr. Donaghue forfeited this argument when he affirma-
tively argued at the Veterans Court that the Board failed
to obtain private records related to his bilateral knee
claims, J.A. 106–08, yet did not make the same argument
with respect to his PTSD claim. See Singleton v. Wulff,
428
U.S. 106, 120 (1976). Mr. Donaghue nonetheless argues
Case: 21-2368 Document: 55 Page: 5 Filed: 02/15/2023
DONAGHUE v. MCDONOUGH 5
that we should still consider the argument, because the
Veterans Court reviewed the 2017 examination discussing
the records at issue. We have consistently declined to con-
sider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, and we
again decline to do so here.
III
Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments
raised on appeal, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
