Case: 22-1918 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 02/21/2023

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LONNIE B. SORRELL, Claimant-Appellant v. DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2022-1918 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 20-8853, Judge Coral Wong Pi- etsch. ______________________ Decided: February 21, 2023 ______________________ LONNIE B. SORRELL, Chandler, AZ, pro se.

BORISLAV KUSHNIR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON, CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Y. KEN LEE, Office of General Counsel, United States De- partment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Case: 22-1918 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 02/21/2023

2 SORRELL v. MCDONOUGH

______________________ Before CHEN, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Lonnie Sorrell appeals a final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Ap- peals (Board) that denied his claim for entitlement to a compensable disability rating for a service-connected right wrist cyst. Because Mr. Sorrell’s arguments are beyond the limited jurisdiction of our court, we dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND Mr. Sorrell served in the United States Air Force from 1969 to 1973. SAppx. 53. 1 His separation examination in- dicated that he had “skin diseases.” SAppx. 45–52. In April 1973, Mr. Sorrell filed a claim for service connection for a right wrist cyst, and although the Department of Vet- erans Affairs (VA) granted service connection, it assigned a non-compensable rating for a benign skin growth.

SAppx. 58; see also 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. Mr. Sorrell did not appeal this decision, and it became final.

In 2007, Mr. Sorrell sought a compensable disability rating for (1) his right wrist cyst and (2) arthritis secondary to the cyst. SAppx. 54–57. In May 2008, a VA Regional Office (RO) continued the non-compensable rating for his cyst and determined that his arthritis was not service-con- nected. SAppx. 59–62. Mr. Sorrell appealed to the Board.

Over the course of several remands from the Board, Mr. Sorrell underwent multiple medical examinations. See Sorrell v. McDonough, No. 20-8853, 2022 WL 969961, at *1–3 (Vet. App. Mar. 31, 2022). In July 2020, a VA

Case: 22-1918 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 02/21/2023

SORRELL v. MCDONOUGH 3

examiner issued a medical opinion concluding Mr. Sorrell’s right wrist cyst (1) did not impact gainful employment, and (2) did not cause degenerative changes to the wrist or hand, such as his arthritis. SAppx. 29–33. In August 2020, the RO issued a supplemental statement of the case denying a compensable rating for the right wrist cyst. 2 Sorrell, 2022 WL 969961, at *3.

Mr. Sorrell again appealed to the Board, and on No- vember 30, 2020, the Board denied a compensable rating for his right wrist cyst. SAppx. 13–20. After reviewing the medical evidence of record indicating his right wrist cyst “was intermittent, not symptomatic, and not a reason to have had it surgically removed or [to have] been denied em- ployment post-service . . . . [and thus] was/is inconsequen- tial,” the Board concluded that “the weight of the evidence is against a compensable rating for [Mr. Sorrell’s right wrist cyst].” SAppx. 19–20. However, the Board remanded Mr. Sorrell’s arthritis claim for further development be- cause the medical opinions of record did not adequately ad- dress certain private treatment records. SAppx. 20–26.

Mr. Sorrell appealed to the Veterans Court. The Vet- erans Court affirmed the Board’s denial, finding “Mr. Sor- rell identifie[d] no evidence that could possibly be favorable to his claim for a compensable rating for right wrist cyst.”

Sorrell, 2022 WL 969961, at *5. The Veterans Court then rejected Mr. Sorrell’s argument that his 1972 separation examination was incomplete for failing to diagnose, at that time, his subsequent bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and arthritis diagnoses. Id. The Veterans Court also

Case: 22-1918 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 02/21/2023

4 SORRELL v. MCDONOUGH

rejected Mr. Sorrell’s argument that his right wrist cyst should have been assigned a compensable rating under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.324 or 3.321, finding Mr. Sorrell did not identify any evidence suggesting his cyst “interfered with normal employability” or “is so exceptional or unusual that it ren- ders application of the regular schedular ratings impracti- cal.” Id. (first citing 38 C.F.R. § 3.324; and then citing 38 C.F.R. § 3.321). Finally, the Veterans Court found that Mr. Sorrell did not identify any evidence suggesting that the Board made its determinations based on bias, rather than record evidence. Id. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION Our authority to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited by statute. Goodman v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d 1383, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2017). While we have jurisdiction to “re- view the legal determinations of the Veterans Court,” we “may not review the Veterans Court’s factual findings or its application of law to facts absent a constitutional issue.”

Singleton v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1332, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Thus, where an appeal chal- lenges factual determinations by the Veterans Court, we lack subject matter jurisdiction and dismissal is required.

Mr. Sorrell argues that the Board erroneously denied a compensable rating for his right wrist cyst. See Appellant’s Br. 1, 4–5. 3 That argument, however, is beyond our juris- diction to consider. See Middleton v. Shinseki, 727 F.3d 1172, 1177–78 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (explaining that determin- ing whether a higher disability rating is warranted “re- quires an application of law to fact that is beyond our jurisdiction”); see also Sorrell, 2022 WL 969961, at *4–5; SAppx. 19–20.

Case: 22-1918 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 02/21/2023

SORRELL v. MCDONOUGH 5

Mr. Sorrell also argues that the Board’s decision (i) was tainted by bias or (ii) “fail[ed] to apply or misappl[ied]” 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321 and 3.324. See Appellant’s Br. 5. Because the Veterans Court found that he did not provide evidence for “the necessary factual predicate” to support his argu- ments, see Sorrell, 2022 WL 969961, at *5, Mr. Sorrell is challenging the Veteran Court’s factual determination, or at most its application of law to the facts. Thus, this chal- lenge is also beyond our jurisdiction. 4 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

Lastly, we do not have jurisdiction to consider Mr. Sor- rell’s argument that his separation examination was in- complete. See Appellant’s Br. 7. We have repeatedly held that “the sufficiency of a medical opinion is a matter be- yond our jurisdictional reach, because the underlying ques- tion is one of fact.” Prinkey v. Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Because the only issues here involve challenges to the Board’s fact finding regarding the evidence supporting a compensable disability rating for his right wrist cyst, the adequacy of his separation examination, and the Veterans

Case: 22-1918 Document: 24 Page: 6 Filed: 02/21/2023

6 SORRELL v. MCDONOUGH

Court’s application of law to fact, we lack jurisdiction. 5 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Sorrell’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. We therefore dismiss Mr. Sorrell’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. However, we note that on November 30, 2020 the Board remanded to the VA for further examination of outstanding VA and/or private treatment records related to Mr. Sorrell’s arthritis claim, and nothing in this Opinion forecloses Mr. Sorrell from pur- suing a VA determination and any appeals that would is- sue from it.

DISMISSED COSTS No costs.