Case: 23-1905 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 10/05/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ARTHUR GARCIA,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-1905
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-1713, Judge Michael P. Allen.
______________________
Decided: October 5, 2023
______________________
ARTHUR GARCIA, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI,
PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before DYK, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1905 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 10/05/2023
2 GARCIA v. MCDONOUGH
PER CURIAM.
Arthur Garcia, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, proceed-
ing pro se, appeals from a decision issued of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying entitlement
to an initial disability rating greater than 10% for (1) limi-
tation of extension of the right hip, and (2) degenerative
arthritis of the right hip. The Veterans Court also declined
to address Mr. Garcia’s clear and unmistakable error
(“CUE”) claim, holding that CUE claims must be first
raised at the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Of-
fice (“RO”). Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Garcia’s
appeal, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Garcia served on active duty in the United States
Air Force from August 1962 to August 1964 and from Au-
gust 1990 to August 1991 and for many years in the Air
Force Reserve. Garcia v. McDonough, No. 22-1713, 2023
WL 153405, at *1 (Vet. App. Jan. 11, 2023). Mr. Garcia has
litigated his disability claims relating to his right hip for
several years before the RO and the Board. Service con-
nection was granted to a limited extent and eventually, in
this case, the Board granted Mr. Garcia a total disability
rating based on individual unemployability, effective May
1, 2012. Id. In the same case, the Board denied Mr. Garcia
entitlement to an initial disability rating greater than 10%
for (1) limitation of extension of the right hip, and (2) de-
generative arthritis of the right hip. Id. Mr. Garcia ap-
pealed, and the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s
decision, finding that Mr. Garcia failed to carry his burden
to establish error in the Board’s decision. Id. This appeal
followed.
Case: 23-1905 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 10/05/2023
GARCIA v. MCDONOUGH 3
DISCUSSION
The jurisdiction of this Court to review the decisions of
the Veterans Court is limited by statute, permitting us to
review only “the validity of a decision of the [Veterans]
Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or
any interpretation thereof.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); Flores-
Vazquez v. McDonough, 996 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2021). “Except to the extent that an appeal under this
chapter presents a constitutional issue,” we “may not re-
view (A) a challenge to a factual determination, 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).
In his briefing on appeal, Mr. Garcia has raised no co-
herent argument that the Veterans Court failed to properly
interpret a statute or regulation or address a constitutional
question. We have examined the Veterans Court decision
and found no issue within our jurisdiction as to the rating
decisions. As to Mr. Garcia’s CUE claim regarding a 1992
denial of service connection, that issue, as the Veterans
Court noted below, must be first raised with the RO. Just
as the Veterans Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the
issue in the first instance, we do as well. Garcia, 2023 WL
153405, at *2.
Because the Veterans Court opinion did not elaborate
on the meaning of any statute, regulation, or constitutional
question in its decision, we lack jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.