Case: 20-1380 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 06/12/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ROBERT D. WATSON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2020-1380
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 18-3688, Chief Judge Margaret C.
Bartley.
______________________
Decided: June 12, 2020
______________________
ROBERT D. WATSON, Great Falls, FL, pro se.
ALISON VICKS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di-
vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by JOSEPH
H. HUNT, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, ROBERT EDWARD
KIRSCHMAN, JR.; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, Office of
General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 20-1380 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 06/12/2020
2 WATSON v. WILKIE
______________________
Before NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Robert D. Watson appeals a decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
Court”), affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’
(“Board”) denial of entitlement to an effective date earlier
than March 8, 2011, for the award of service-connected dis-
ability benefits for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (“ALS”).
Watson v. Wilkie, No. 18-3688, 2019 WL 5607519, at *7
(Vet. App. Oct. 31, 2019); A. App. 1 (Judgment). 1 Because
we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Standard
Our “jurisdiction . . . to review decisions of the Veter-
ans Court is limited by statute.” Gazelle v. Shulkin, 868
F.3d 1006, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We may “review and de-
cide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regula-
tion or any interpretation thereof . . . and . . . interpret
constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent pre-
sented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c).
Absent a “constitutional issue,” however, we lack subject
matter jurisdiction over “(A) a challenge to a factual deter-
mination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as ap-
plied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2); see
Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)).
1 “A. App.” refers to Appellee Secretary of Veterans
Affairs’ Appendix attached to the response brief.
Case: 20-1380 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 06/12/2020
WATSON v. WILKIE 3
II. We Lack Jurisdiction Over Mr. Watson’s Appeal
Mr. Watson’s appeal involves neither the interpreta-
tion of a statute or regulation, nor a constitutional issue;
instead, Mr. Watson raises only issues of fact that we may
not review. See Appellant’s Br 2 (Mr. Watson indicating
that his appeal does not “involve the validity or interpreta-
tion of a statute or regulation” or a “constitutional issue”).
Specifically, Mr. Watson argues that he is entitled to an
effective date of June 1, 2001, for his service connected
ALS, because “[a]ll the medical evidence support[s] [the]
fact” that, while the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
(“VA”) initially granted him a service connection for a hia-
tal hernia with difficulty swallowing and benign tremors,
effective June 1, 2001, those disabilities were, “in real-
ity[,] . . . the onset of ALS[.]” Id. at 5.
Mr. Watson served in the U.S. Air Force from May 1977
through May 2001. A. App. 163. “In December 2000, prior
to his discharge from service, he filed claims for service con-
nection for, inter alia, benign tremors and hiatal hernia
with difficulty swallowing.” Watson, 2019 WL 5607519,
at *1; see A. App. 163 (December 2000 Claim). In Au-
gust 2001, following a VA medical examination, Mr. Wat-
son was “granted service connection for [the] hiatal hernia,
including problems swallowing, evaluated at 10 [percent],
and service connection for benign tremors, evaluated as
noncompensable” with an effective date of June 1, 2001.
Watson, 2019 WL 5607519, at *1–2; see A. App. 147–61
(August 2001 Rating Decision). Mr. Watson did not appeal
this decision and it became final. See Watson, 2019 WL
5607519, at *2; In re Watson, No. 12-31 769, slip op. at 11
(Bd. Vet. App. Mar. 14, 2018).
“In March 2012, Mr. Watson filed a claim for service
connection for ALS.” Watson, 2019 WL 5607519, at *2;
A. App. 146 (March 2012 Claim). The VA granted service
connection based on 38 C.F.R. § 3.318, with a 100 percent
evaluation and an effective date of March 8, 2012. See
Case: 20-1380 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 06/12/2020
4 WATSON v. WILKIE
Watson, 2019 WL 5607519, at *2; A. App. 143–45 (April
2012 Rating Decision); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.318 (2009)
(creating a “[p]resumptive service connection for [ALS]”
provided that the disease “manifested at any time after dis-
charge or release” from, in relevant part, “active, continu-
ous service of [ninety] days or more[,]” effective September
23, 2008). Following appeal to the Veteran’s Court and re-
mand to the Board, the Board assigned an effective date of
March 8, 2011, explaining that “the earliest effective date
that could be assigned” was March 8, 2011, one year prior
to the date of receipt of Mr. Watson’s claim. In re Watson,
No. 12-31 769, slip op. at 9; see id. at 8 (explaining that
where a “claim is reviewed at the request of a claimant
more than one year after the effective date of the law or VA
issue, benefits may be authorized for a period of one year
prior to the date of receipt of such request” (citing 38 U.S.C.
§ 5110(g); 38 C.F.R. § 3.114(a))); see 38 U.S.C. § 5110(g)
(providing that, when a benefit is awarded based on, inter
alia, an “administrative issue,” “[i]n no event shall such
award or increase be retroactive for more than one year
from the date of application therefor or the date of admin-
istrative determination of entitlement, whichever is ear-
lier”); 38 C.F.R. § 3.114(a) (similar). The Veteran’s Court
affirmed, explaining that the Board’s assignment of a
March 8, 2011, effective date “was consistent with govern-
ing law, plausible in light of the record, and sufficiently de-
tailed to inform Mr. Watson of the reasons for its
determination[.]” Watson, 2019 WL 5607519, at *7. The
Veteran’s Court further explained that, contrary to Mr.
Watson’s newly-raised argument on appeal, “Mr. Watson’s
December 2000 [C]laim for service connection did not in-
clude a claim for service connection for ALS” that could
serve as a basis for an earlier claim. Id. at *6.
To the extent Mr. Watson seeks review of the Board’s
determination of the effective date for his service-con-
nected ALS, see Appellant’s Br. 4 (arguing that “the VA as-
sessment” of his ALS “is not factual” and “inaccurate,
Case: 20-1380 Document: 21 Page: 5 Filed: 06/12/2020
WATSON v. WILKIE 5
weak, and inadequate justification for denial” of an earlier
effective date), 5 (arguing that the VA’s consideration of
“different variations of ALS” and their effects are an “irra-
tional and weak justification for denial”), he raises an issue
of law as applied to fact that we may not review, see 38
U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)(B); Ferguson v. Principi, 273 F.3d 1072,
1075 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (providing that “the mere application
of a statute or regulation to the facts of a case,” without
“interpretation” of that statute or regulation, does not
bring a case within our jurisdiction). To the extent
Mr. Watson seeks review of the Veteran Court’s interpre-
tation of his December 2000 Claim, specifically, as to
whether it included ALS, see Appellant’s Br. 4–5 (arguing
that it “would be inconceivable” that he would have known
to “contend[] [his disability] was ALS” in August 2001), he
challenges a factual determination that we similarly may
not review, see 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)(A); Ellington v.
Peake, 541 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he inter-
pretation of the contents of a claim for benefits [i]s a factual
issue over which we d[o] not have jurisdiction[.]” (citation
omitted)). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Wat-
son’s appeal.
CONCLUSION
We do not have jurisdiction to review this appeal. We
have sympathy for Mr. Watson’s suffering and understand
that he believes he was misdiagnosed by VA doctors for
many years, but we have no authority to rethink the fac-
tual conclusions reached below regarding those issues. Ac-
cordingly, Mr. Watson’s appeal from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims is
DISMISSED