Case: 19-2433 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 06/04/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHAEL W. WILLIAMS,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2019-2433
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 18-2876, Judge Coral Wong Pi-
etsch.
______________________
Decided: June 4, 2020
______________________
J. BRYAN JONES, III, Lake Charles, LA, for claimant-
appellant.
ANN MOTTO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Divi-
sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by JOSEPH
H. HUNT, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, ROBERT EDWARD
KIRSCHMAN, JR.; CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Y. KEN LEE,
Case: 19-2433 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 06/04/2020
2 WILLIAMS v. WILKIE
Office of General Counsel, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before PROST, Chief Judge, REYNA and TARANTO, Circuit
Judges.
PROST, Chief Judge.
Michael Williams appeals from the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Vet-
erans Court”) denying him entitlement to a compensable
rating for service-connected pulmonary tuberculosis
(“PTB”). See Williams v. Wilkie, No. 18-2876, 2019 WL
3366777 (Vet. App. July 26, 2019) (“Decision”). Because we
lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.
I
Mr. Williams served in the U.S. Air Force from July
1974 to June 1978. In November 1978, he was diagnosed
with and treated for PTB. The United States Department
of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) determined that the PTB was
service connected and assigned him a 100% disability rat-
ing. An August 1981 examination showed that Mr. Wil-
liams’s PTB was inactive and asymptomatic. The VA,
therefore, reduced his disability rating to zero.
In June 2008, Mr. Williams filed a claim for service-
connected hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (“COPD”), bronchitis, and lung disease (emphy-
sema). In August 2008, he amended his claim to include
sleep apnea. He asserted that these were all related to his
service-connected PTB. In April 2012, Mr. Williams under-
went a medical examination in connection with his claim.
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) deemed this
medical examination inadequate for adjudication pur-
poses. In April 2016, Mr. Williams underwent a second
medical examination, which is central to this appeal.
Case: 19-2433 Document: 30 Page: 3 Filed: 06/04/2020
WILLIAMS v. WILKIE 3
The April 2016 medical opinion stated, among other
things, that Mr. Williams’s “current COPD/emphysema,
sleep apnea and hypertension are not residuals of pulmo-
nary tuberculosis, nor are they due to or caused by the Vet-
eran’s pulmonary tuberculosis.” J.A. 62. It further stated
that the “tuberculosis was treated and rendered inactive by
1980–81; at that time there were no residual findings or
symptoms at all. . . . COPD/emphysema is not a comp[l]ica-
tion of treated tuberculosis” and “[s]ince the [tuberculosis]
was rendered inactive by 1980–81, it could not have aggra-
vated the above conditions.” J.A. 62. The VA, therefore,
did not award Mr. Williams a compensable rating.
Mr. Williams then appealed to the Board. As relevant
to this appeal, the Board found that “the preponderance of
the evidence is against the Veteran’s claims seeking service
connection for COPD and emphysema.” J.A. 28. Accord-
ingly, the Board affirmed the rating decision. J.A. 28.
Mr. Williams then appealed the Board’s decision to the
Veterans Court. He argued that the April 2016 medical
examination was “inadequate” because it was “internally
inconsistent” and “does not provide a rationale.” J.A. 15.
The Veterans Court disagreed and affirmed the Board’s de-
cision. 1 The Veterans Court reasoned that the April 2016
medical opinion, “when read as a whole, . . . unambiguously
concludes that [Mr. Williams]’s PTB is inactive with no
chronic residuals.” Decision, 2019 WL 3366777, at *3.
Mr. Williams now appeals, contending we have juris-
diction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a).
II
Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292 we have limited jurisdiction
over an appeal from a Veterans Court’s decision. “Absent
1 Other issues that were before the Veterans Court
are not on appeal to us.
Case: 19-2433 Document: 30 Page: 4 Filed: 06/04/2020
4 WILLIAMS v. WILKIE
a constitutional issue, this court is precluded from review-
ing challenges to factual determinations or challenges to
an application of law to fact.” King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d
1339, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Although this Court has
jurisdiction to review a ‘rule of law,’ including a rule estab-
lished by a judicial precedent of the Veterans Court, it may
not review the application of law to the facts of a particular
case.” Id. at 1346. In ascertaining whether we have juris-
diction, “the mere recitation of a basis for jurisdiction . . . is
not controlling; we must look to the true nature of the ac-
tion.” Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224, 225 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
III
Mr. Williams contends that we have jurisdiction over
his appeal because he is “raising a question of interpreta-
tion of relevant law, [which is] a matter within the court’s
jurisdiction.” Appellant’s Br. 2 (citing Madden v. Gober,
125 F.3d 1477, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
In Madden, we determined that we had jurisdiction be-
cause the appeal could be characterized as “raising a ques-
tion of the interpretation of relevant law.” Madden,
125 F.3d at 1480 (emphasis added). Here, although Mr.
Williams argues for an interpretation about what infer-
ences constitute a “medical determination” under Acevedo
v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 286 (2012), such an interpretation
is irrelevant to the outcome of this case. 2 As the Govern-
ment points out, the Veterans Court, besides citing Acevedo
in its apparent legal standard section, never applied
Acevedo. See Appellee’s Br. 11. Instead, the Veterans
Court made several statements refuting any notion that
2 Mr. Williams and the Government appear to agree
that Acevedo precludes the Board from making certain in-
ferences that result in a medical determination. See Ap-
pellant’s Br. 3; Appellee’s Br. 9–10, 13–14.
Case: 19-2433 Document: 30 Page: 5 Filed: 06/04/2020
WILLIAMS v. WILKIE 5
inferences were made. For example, the Veterans Court
noted that, “when read as a whole, the examination report
unambiguously concludes that the appellant’s PTB is inac-
tive with no chronic residuals.” Decision, 2019 WL
3366777, at *3. The Veterans Court further stated that
“the examiner opined that the appellant’s COPD and em-
physema were not residuals of PTB and were not caused by
or aggravated by PTB, and provided a thorough rationale
to support his conclusions.” Id. Nothing in Mr. Williams’s
briefing persuades us that an interpretation of a rule of law
articulated in Acevedo is relevant to this appeal. 3
Accordingly, the true nature of this action asks us to
review the adequacy of the medical examination. See, e.g.,
Appellant’s Br. 6 (arguing that the medical opinion is “in-
ternally inconsistent”). We therefore lack jurisdiction over
Mr. Williams’s appeal and are compelled to dismiss it. See
Prinkey v. Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(“[T]he sufficiency of a medical opinion is a matter beyond
our jurisdictional reach, because the underlying question
is one of fact.”); see also Anderson v. Shinseki, 558 F. App’x
1031, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (rejecting appellant’s “attempt
to frame [the] challenge as a question of law” to establish
jurisdiction).
DISMISSED
COSTS
The parties shall bear their own costs.
3 Mr. Williams did not submit a reply brief.