NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

WILLIE J. JOHNSON, Claimant-Appellant

v.

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

2019-1376 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 17-2970, Judge Michael P. Allen. ______________________

Decided: May 14, 2019 ______________________

WILLIE J. JOHNSON, Gainesville, FL, pro se.

DANIEL KENNETH GREENE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre- sented by JOSEPH H. HUNT, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.; MARTIE ADELMAN, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States De- partment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________ 2 JOHNSON v. WILKIE

Before LOURIE, LINN, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Mr. Willie J. Johnson appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the “Veterans Court”), which affirmed a determination of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the “Board”) denying Johnson service connection for his pulmonary and essential hyper- tension. See Johnson v. Wilkie, No. 17-2970, 2018 WL 5003436 (Vet. App. Oct. 16, 2018) (“Decision”). Johnson as- serts that the Veterans Court failed to address his argu- ment that his hypertension is secondarily service- connected through his heart condition. Because we lack jurisdiction to decide this question, we dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND Johnson served in the United States Marine Corps dur- ing the Vietnam War, from August 1969 through April 1971. During this time, he served on ships that often docked in Da Nang Harbor. Thus, the VA presumes that he was exposed to herbicides. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116; Appel- lee Br. 2. Both Johnson’s pre-induction examination in June 1969 and his separation examination in April 1971 recorded normal pulmonary and cardiovascular function. Johnson was later diagnosed with essential hypertension in 1998 and pulmonary hypertension around 2003. The regional office denied Johnson’s application for ser- vice connection for essential and pulmonary hypertension in 2004. The Board sustained that decision in February 2006. In 2009, the Veterans Court vacated the Board’s de- cision and remanded to the Board for further proceedings. The Board again denied service connection in 2013. Ulti- mately, the Board denied service connection for both hy- pertension claims, rejecting Johnson’s arguments that his hypertension is service-connected on a secondary basis due to his diabetes or another condition, but it remanded John- son’s claim for service connection for anemia. See In re JOHNSON v. WILKIE 3

Johnson, No. 01-02 481, slip op. at 11–13 (Bd. Vet. App. May 5, 2017) (“Board Decision”). The Board also, in a pre- vious decision, remanded Johnson’s claims for service con- nection for several other conditions, including ischemic heart disease, for separate development at the regional of- fice. Johnson then appealed to the Veterans Court. He ar- gued that the Board erred in failing to address his claim that his hypertension is either presumptively service-con- nected due to his conceded exposure to herbicides, see 38 U.S.C. § 1116, or secondarily connected through his heart condition. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s deci- sion because it found that Johnson’s arguments regarding herbicide exposure and secondary connection through his heart condition were not made to the Board, and hence he failed to exhaust his remedy before the Board. Decision, 2018 WL 5003436, at *1–2; see Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Johnson then filed an appeal to this court. DISCUSSION The scope of our review in an appeal from the Veterans Court is limited. We may review a decision with respect to a rule of law or interpretation of a statute or regulation that was relied upon by the Veterans Court in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). But, except with respect to constitutional issues, this Court “may not review (A) a chal- lenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2); see also Sneed v. McDonald, 819 F.3d 1347, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Johnson argues on appeal that the Veterans Court erred in not addressing his claim of service connection on a secondary basis through his heart condition. Furthermore, Johnson argues that the Veterans Court erred in not 4 JOHNSON v. WILKIE

holding that his heart condition, for which he has not yet been granted service connection, is itself secondarily ser- vice-connected through his anemia condition. In response, the government contends that this court does not have ju- risdiction to address either argument because the Veterans Court’s application of issue exhaustion is essentially an ap- plication of law to fact. The government further argues that Johnson’s second argument is itself waived because it was never presented to the Veterans Court, and, in any case, only concerns a factual determination that lies out- side of our statutory jurisdiction. We agree with the government that we lack jurisdic- tion to decide this appeal. We have held that the Veterans Court’s use of issue exhaustion “is largely a matter of ap- plication of law to fact, a question over which we lack juris- diction.” Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Cook v. Principi, 353 F.3d 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). This case involves no exception to that general rule. The Veterans Court found as a factual matter that Johnson did not argue to the Board that either his essential or pulmonary hypertension is secondarily connected through his heart condition. We do not possess jurisdiction to review such a finding. See Barney v. Shinseki, 464 F. App’x 884, 885 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (no jurisdiction “to review the factual determination of service connection” (citing Johnson v. Derwinski, 949 F.2d 394, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1991))). Johnson’s second contention, that his heart condition should be considered service-connected through his anemia condition, even if not waived, similarly presents a factual determination that we lack jurisdiction to address. CONCLUSION We have fully considered Johnson’s arguments but find them unpersuasive. The appeal is dismissed for lack of ju- risdiction. DISMISSED JOHNSON v. WILKIE 5

COSTS No costs.