Case: 22-1928 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 12/06/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
WILLIAM GRONER,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-1928
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20-5722, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: December 6, 2022
______________________
WILLIAM GRONER, Erie, PA, pro se.
MATNEY ELIZABETH ROLFE, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI,
PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
______________________
Case: 22-1928 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 12/06/2022
2 GRONER v. MCDONOUGH
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
William Groner appeals a decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims affirming the Board
of Veterans’ Appeals’ decision denying Mr. Groner’s re-
quest to reopen his claim for service-connected disability
benefits. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Groner served in the Navy from March 1970 to De-
cember 1972, followed by service in the Naval Reserves.
S. Appx. 8. He suffers from coronary artery disease and
has sought service connection for that heart condition since
1998. Id. According to Mr. Groner, his condition began
during an inactive duty training exercise in 1981, but was
not officially diagnosed until June 1988. S. Appx. 2.
A Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO)
denied Mr. Groner’s claim for service connection in 1999,
finding there was no evidence to support an in-service car-
diac condition. S. Appx. 8. Mr. Groner did not appeal, and
the RO’s decision became final. Id. In 2001, Mr. Groner
petitioned the Board to reopen his claim. S. Appx. 2. After
a lengthy procedural history, the Board issued a final deci-
sion in 2010 denying service connection. S. Appx. 1–2.
Mr. Groner filed a new petition to reopen his claim in
2014. The RO denied the petition. S. Appx. 2. The Board
affirmed, finding the evidence submitted by Mr. Groner
was not new and material. S. Appx. 5–6. Mr. Groner ap-
pealed and the Veterans Court affirmed, holding the
Board’s finding was supported by the record and accompa-
nied by an adequate statement of reasons. S. Appx. 10.
Mr. Groner appeals.
Case: 22-1928 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 12/06/2022
GRONER v. MCDONOUGH 3
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).
We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Groner’s appeal. Mr.
Groner’s appeal does not involve the validity or interpreta-
tion of a statute or regulation. Nor does it raise any consti-
tutional issues. 1 Instead, Mr. Groner challenges the
Board’s finding that the evidence he submitted is not new
and material. However, “determinations of new and mate-
rial evidence require the application of a clear legal stand-
ard set forth in a regulation to the particular facts of a
case.” Prillaman v. Principi,
346 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
1 Mr. Groner summarily alleges that the decisions
below raise a constitutional issue, Appellant’s Informal Br.
at 2, because the Department of Veterans Affairs and the
Board are “preventing [him] from the pursuit of happiness
that is an unalienable right from the Creator found in the
Declaration of Independence and upheld by our Constitu-
tion.” Id. at 5. This vague statement is not sufficient to
raise a genuine constitutional issue for purposes of our ju-
risdiction. See Helfer v. West,
174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed.
Cir. 1999) (“To the extent [appellant] has simply put a ‘due
process’ label on his contention that he should have pre-
vailed on his. . . claim, his claim is constitutional in name
only” and “does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we oth-
erwise lack.”).
Case: 22-1928 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 12/06/2022
4 GRONER v. MCDONOUGH
2003). We lack jurisdiction to review application of law to
fact and therefore dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
