`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`DAVID L. JOHNSON,
`Claimant-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
`AFFAIRS,
`Respondent-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2019-1853
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
`Veterans Claims in No. 18-775, Judge Margaret C. Bartley.
`______________________
`
`Decided: October 2, 2019
`______________________
`
`DAVID L. JOHNSON, Portland, OR, pro se.
`
`
` ISAAC B. ROSENBERG, Commercial Litigation Branch,
`Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
`ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
`JOSEPH H. HUNT, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., ROBERT EDWARD
`KIRSCHMAN, JR.; CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Y. KEN LEE, Of-
`fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet-
`erans Affairs, Washington, DC.
` ______________________
`
`
`
`2
`
`JOHNSON v. WILKIE
`
`Before DYK, PLAGER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`PER CURIAM.
`David L. Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals from a decision
`of the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims
`(“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a deci-
`sion of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that de-
`nied his claim for entitlement to service connection for left
`and right knee disabilities. We dismiss for lack of jurisdic-
`tion.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Johnson served on active duty in the U.S. Army from
`June to December 1977. In November 1977, Johnson in-
`jured his right knee after falling down stairs at his bar-
`racks. He was diagnosed with a collateral ligament strain.
`Johnson was given light duty and placed on crutches for
`two to three weeks.
`In October 2010, Johnson filed a claim for service con-
`nection for a bilateral knee condition.1 In a written state-
`ment filed as part of his claim, Johnson stated that his
`right-knee disability was due to the in-service injury and
`his left-knee disability resulted from him favoring his right
`knee ever since.
`In March 2011, Johnson underwent a VA examination.
`In his report, the examiner concluded that while Johnson
`suffered from knee disabilities, there was no “nexus” be-
`tween the current status of Johnson’s knees and Johnson’s
`in-service injury. J.A. 29. The examiner noted that John-
`son had worked physically laborious jobs after leaving the
`Army, had an intervening injury while playing basketball
`that resulted in arthroscopic surgery, and for 13 years after
`
`1 Johnson also claimed entitlement for an unrelated
`back disability sustained in 1975. He does not raise this
`claim on appeal.
`
`
`
`JOHNSON v. WILKIE
`
`
`3
`
`the surgery had “excellent range of motion” and only “gen-
`eralized aches.” Id. Thus, the examiner concluded that
`Johnson’s current knee status was “not at least as likely as
`not related to [his] service.” Id.
`Johnson appealed to the Board. The Board agreed with
`the examiner, concluding that Johnson’s knee condition
`had no service connection. The Veterans Court affirmed
`the Board. Johnson now appeals to this court.
`DISCUSSION
`This court’s authority to review decisions of the Veter-
`ans Court is limited. Title 38, Section 7292(a) provides that
`this court may only review a decision of the Veterans Court
`with respect to the validity or interpretation of any statute
`or regulation relied on by the court in making its decision.
`Further, except to the extent that an appeal presents a con-
`stitutional issue, this court may not review “(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). If an appellant’s case does not meet
`these criteria, Section 7292(d) requires that we dismiss the
`appeal.
`This appeal involves neither constitutional issues2 nor
`the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation.
`Instead, Johnson argues in his informal brief that his knee
`suffers from the “same injury” as the one he sustained
`while in service, and that he now has problems with his
`other knee because he had to use that knee instead of the
`injured knee. Appellant’s Informal Br. Resp. No. 3, 5. This
`argument merely
`challenges
`the Board’s
`factual
`
`2 Johnson indicates in his brief that the Veterans
`Court “decide[d] constitutional issues.” Appellant’s Infor-
`mal Br. Resp. No. 3. However, Johnson does not identify
`any such constitutional questions, and the Veterans Court
`opinion mentions no such issue.
`
`
`
`4
`
`JOHNSON v. WILKIE
`
`determination that Johnson’s knee status is not service
`connected, and we lack jurisdiction to review it. See 38
`U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)(A). Johnson’s arguments that the Vet-
`erans Court “failed [in] giving [him the benefit of] the
`doubt” with respect to his knee injuries, Appellant’s Infor-
`mal Br. Resp. No. 4, and failed to satisfy the “duty to as-
`sist,” J.A. 4, in the context of this case are just additional,
`unreviewable challenges to the Board’s factual determina-
`tions.
`
`DISMISSED
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
