Young v. Wilkie

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: April 9, 2020
• Docket: 20-1249
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-1249 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 04/09/2020

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RONALD J. YOUNG, Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT L. WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2020-1249 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 18-6794, Judge Joseph L. Toth. ______________________

Decided: April 9, 2020 ______________________

RONALD J. YOUNG, North Fort Myers, FL, pro se.

MATTHEW PAUL ROCHE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by JOSEPH H. HUNT, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.; Y. KEN LEE, EVAN SCOTT GRANT, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________ Case: 20-1249 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 04/09/2020

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Ronald J. Young, a Navy veteran proceeding pro se, ap- peals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that affirmed a denial of his claim for dis- ability compensation. Mr. Young seeks disability compen- sation after receiving medical treatment that he claims caused him injuries. He also claims that a treating physi- cian intentionally harmed and sexually assaulted him. We dismiss Mr. Young’s appeal because this court lacks juris- diction over appeals from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Vet- erans Claims, such as this, that involve solely challenges to factual determinations, or challenges to the application of law or regulation to the facts of a particular case. BACKGROUND Mr. Young served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from June 1969 to April 1970. In May 2010, he underwent a colonoscopy at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) treatment facility. Mr. Young was diagnosed with internal hemorrhoids, diverticulitis, and angiodysplasia. Medical records indicate that after the procedure, Mr. Young was in “stable” condition and had “no adverse effects noted from procedure or sedation.” J.A. 29. In June 2010, Mr. Young called the VA and reported stomach problems, which a nurse attributed to acid reflex and heart burn—conditions unrelated to colonoscopies. The nurse advised Mr. Young to take over-the-counter Prilosec. In July 2010, Mr. Young visited the Emergency Room, where he was diagnosed with a serious urinary tract infection and was prescribed antibi- otics. Mr. Young never complained about rectal bleeding or assault during the June 2010 call or during the July 2010 visit. Two years after the medial treatment, in March 2012, Mr. Young submitted a claim to the VA Regional Office (“Regional Office”), seeking benefits as a “person disabled Case: 20-1249 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 04/09/2020

YOUNG v. WILKIE 3

by treatment or vocational rehabilitation” under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. In particular, Mr. Young claimed that the colonos- copy caused rectal bleeding and a vitamin B-12 deficiency. Mr. Young also claimed that the treating physician in May 2010 intentionally hurt, violated, and raped him. The Re- gional Office reviewed Mr. Young’s medical records and ob- tained an opinion from a VA medical examiner. The examiner opined that the treating physician properly con- ducted Mr. Young’s colonoscopy and did not cause Mr. Young’s bleeding or his vitamin B-12 deficiency. The ex- aminer found no evidence of sexual assault. As a result, the Regional Office denied Mr. Young’s claim for § 1151 compensation benefits. Mr. Young appealed the Regional Office determination to U.S. Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). The Board concluded that compensation was “not war- ranted.” J.A. 20. The Board explained that in order to ob- tain disability compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151, Mr. Young was required to show (i) that the VA treatment caused the alleged disability and (ii) that the proximate cause of the disability was either an unforeseeable event or the fault of the VA in furnishing the medical treatment (e.g., carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, or an er- ror in judgment). The Board concluded that Mr. Young failed to prove that his asserted disability was caused by the medical treatment. Mr. Young appealed the Board’s determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s determi- nation that Mr. Young is not entitled to disability compen- sation under § 1151. The Veteran’s Court affirmed the Board’s finding that Mr. Young had not identified evidence establishing a link between his May 2020 colonoscopy and his alleged rectal bleeding and vitamin B-12 deficiency. In addition, the Veteran’s Court affirmed the Board’s finding that contemporaneous medical evidence outweighed Mr. Young’s lay assertions of an assault. The Veterans Court Case: 20-1249 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 04/09/2020

entered judgment against Mr. Young on November 19, 2019. Mr. Young appeals to this Court. ANALYSIS Our jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We have exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide challenges to the validity of any statute or reg- ulation, or to any interpretation of statutory, regulatory, or constitutional provisions, to the extent such provisions are presented and necessary to a decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). We lack jurisdiction to review challenges to factual deter- minations, or challenges to the application of law or regu- lation to the facts of a particular case. Id. § 7292(d)(2). And while we liberally construe pro se pleadings, like those here, in favor of a pro se veteran, the veteran is still re- quired to establish jurisdiction. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). As we understand his informal brief, Mr. Young raises two types of challenges. First, Mr. Young challenges the Veterans Court’s affirmance of the Board’s factual findings that underlie its determination that Mr. Young is not enti- tled to benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151(a)(1). Second, Mr. Young challenges the Veterans Court’s affirmance of the Board’s application of § 1151(a)(1) to the facts of Mr. Young’s case. We have no jurisdiction to hear any of Mr. Young’s challenges. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Finally, Mr. Young does not raise a constitutional challenge or issue. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to hear Mr. Young’s ap- peal. For that reason, the appeal is hereby dismissed. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.