Case: 20-2060 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 01/22/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RAYMOND R. MEDINA,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DAT TRAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2020-2060
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-5858, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith.
______________________
Decided: January 22, 2021
______________________
RAYMOND R. MEDINA, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
IOANA CRISTEI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
JEFFREY B. CLARK, TARA K. HOGAN, ROBERT EDWARD
KIRSCHMAN, JR.
______________________
Case: 20-2060 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 01/22/2021
2 MEDINA v. TRAN
Before MOORE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Raymond Medina appeals a decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans
Court) affirming the Board of Veterans Appeals’ finding of
no clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in its prior denial
of his request for an increased disability rating. See Me-
dina v. Wilkie, No. 19-5858,
2020 WL 1982281 (Vet. App.
Apr. 27, 2020). Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Medina served on active duty in the United States
Army from April 1965 to April 1967. In March 2013, the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted Mr. Medina
service connection for: (1) hearing loss with a noncompen-
sable rating; (2) tinnitus with a ten percent rating, the
highest rating assignable for this condition; (3) deviated
nasal septum with a ten percent rating, the highest rating
assignable for this condition; and (4) a left wrist condition
with a ten percent rating, the highest rating assignable if
the veteran’s wrist is not completely immobile. Medina did
not appeal this decision, and it became final.
In October 2014, Mr. Medina moved for revision of the
2013 decision. He argued that the VA committed CUE by
evaluating his wrist condition and deviated nasal septum
under the wrong diagnostic codes and by failing to consider
his sleep apnea. The Board denied Mr. Medina’s motion,
finding the evidence supported the VA’s choice of diagnos-
tic codes and did not show that Mr. Medina’s sleep apnea
was service-related. S.A. 12–14. Mr. Medina appealed to
the Veterans Court, which affirmed, finding that the
Board’s analysis was thorough and that no evidence in the
record contradicted the Board’s determination that
Mr. Medina’s sleep apnea was not service-related. S.A. 5.
Case: 20-2060 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 01/22/2021
MEDINA v. TRAN 3
DISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited. Pursuant to
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 in-
terpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a fac-
tual 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 de-
termination, 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).
Mr. Medina argues that the Veterans Court should
have found that the VA committed CUE (1) in classifying
his wrist condition and deviated nasal septum and (2) in
failing to provide a disability rating for Mr. Medina’s sleep
apnea. But the Veterans Court’s affirmance of the Board’s
determination is an application of law to facts, which is out-
side of our jurisdiction to review. The Board reviewed the
evidence of record and found that the VA did not commit
CUE in “failing to assign a separate or higher rating under
[a different] Diagnostic Code” for Mr. Medina’s wrist con-
dition or deviated nasal septum. S.A. 11–13. The Veterans
Court affirmed, concluding that the Board’s determination
that the VA did not commit CUE was not “arbitrary, capri-
cious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
with law,” and, in fact, determined that the Board’s analy-
sis of the diagnostic codes “thoroughly explained why each
purported error did not rise to the level of CUE.” S.A. 5.
The Veterans Court also determined that the Board’s fail-
ure to specifically discuss regulations concerning the
weight of evidence 1 simply amounted to a dispute over the
VA’s weighing of the evidence, which “does not amount to
CUE.” S.A. 6. Regarding sleep apnea, the Board found no
1
38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, and 4.7.
Case: 20-2060 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 01/22/2021
4 MEDINA v. TRAN
evidence of record that suggested Mr. Medina’s sleep apnea
was service-connected or that he intended to submit a ser-
vice connection claim. S.A. 14. Furthermore, the Veterans
Court also found Mr. Medina failed to provide any evidence
that existed at the time of the “rating decision that contra-
dict[ed] the Board’s determination that the evidence did
not relate [sleep apnea] to his service or to a service-con-
nected disability.” S.A. 5. Failing to identify a legal error,
Mr. Medina’s challenges before us amount to a disagree-
ment with the Veterans Court’s application of law to fact.
We do not have jurisdiction to revisit these determinations
by the Veterans Court.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Medina’s remaining argu-
ments and find that they do not raise issues within our ju-
risdiction. Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Medina’s
appeal, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
