Case: 22-1254 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 06/10/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
WILLIE B. CLAY,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-1254
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20-3400, Senior Judge William P.
Greene, Jr.
______________________
Decided: June 10, 2022
______________________
WILLIE B. CLAY, Starkville, MS, pro se.
MATTHEW PAUL ROCHE, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, Office of Gen-
eral Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Af-
fairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 22-1254 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 06/10/2022
2 CLAY v. MCDONOUGH
______________________
Before LOURIE, PROST, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Willie B. Clay appeals from the decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the “Veterans
Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals (“the Board”) denying compensation under 38 U.S.C.
§ 1151 for a disability resulting from a December 2006 hip
surgery. See Clay v. McDonough, No. 20-3400, 2021 WL
4445383 (Vet. App. Sept. 29, 2021) (“Veterans Court Deci-
sion”). Because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we
dismiss.
Clay underwent a revision of a right total hip arthro-
plasty at a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) medical
center in December 2006. Veterans Court Decision at *1.
Shortly thereafter, he developed acute disseminated intra-
vascular coagulation (DIC) and was treated for this condi-
tion. Id. Years later, in March 2011, he was diagnosed
with coronary artery disease (CAD). Id.
In February 2012, Clay filed an informal claim for com-
pensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151, asserting that his hip
operation caused a heart attack and DIC. Id. Over the
course of the following eight years—which included two re-
mands from the Board to the VA regional office to obtain
more information—the VA obtained at least three medical
opinions in which the examiner opined that the VA medical
center did not err in treating and managing Clay, and that
it is less likely than not that Clay’s heart condition was
caused by or worsened by the VA’s treatment. See id.
at *1–2; see also SAppx. 14–19; SAppx. 20–40; SAppx. 67–
71. In April 2020, the Board relied on the medical opinions
to deny compensation. The Veterans Court affirmed, find-
ing no clear error in the Board’s reliance on the medical
opinions. Clay appealed to this court.
Case: 22-1254 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 06/10/2022
CLAY v. MCDONOUGH 3
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2010). We lack jurisdiction to review challenges
to factual determinations or the application of law to the
facts of a particular case. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). Here, to the
extent we can discern any arguments in Clay’s informal
brief, he appears to simply disagree with the factual deter-
minations set forth in the Board’s April 2020 decision deny-
ing compensation and the Veterans Court’s affirmance of
that decision. Clay does not, however, present any chal-
lenge over which we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we
must dismiss his appeal.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Clay v. McDonough
Combined Opinion