`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`AARON J. SOLOMON,
`Claimant-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
`VETERANS AFFAIRS,
`Respondent-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2024-1014
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
`Veterans Claims in No. 21-4779, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
`______________________
`
`Decided: April 8, 2024
`______________________
`
`AARON J. SOLOMON, Tampa, FL, 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, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA
`M. MCCARTHY.
`
`______________________
`
`Before LOURIE, DYK, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`
`Case: 24-1014 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 04/08/2024
`
`2
`
`SOLOMON v. MCDONOUGH
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Aaron J. Solomon, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, pro-
`ceeding pro se, appeals a decision of the United States
`Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”).
`Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Solomon’s appeal, we
`dismiss.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Mr. Solomon served on active duty in the United States
`Air Force from April 2002 to June 2006. During his service,
`Mr. Solomon injured his left wrist. Mr. Solomon’s left wrist
`condition was initially rated at 0 percent disabling, but the
`rating was later increased to 10 percent disabling. In 2013,
`Mr. Solomon unsuccessfully sought a higher disability rat-
`ing. Mr. Solomon filed a Notice of Disagreement with the
`rating determination. In September 2015, the VA exam-
`ined Mr. Solomon and again affirmed the 10 percent rating
`decision. Mr. Solomon appealed the decision to the Board.
`In May 2019, during his hearing before the Board, Mr.
`Solomon testified that his wrist condition had worsened
`since the 2015 VA examination, and he identified that he
`had been treated by a Dr. Manning in Fort Lauderdale.
`The Board remanded Mr. Solomon’s claim and directed the
`regional office to obtain Mr. Solomon’s treatment records.
`After the Board remanded the claim, on November 26,
`2019, the VA sent Mr. Solomon a letter requesting that he
`complete and return VA Form 21-4142a (“General Release
`for Medical Provider Information to the Department of Vet-
`erans Affairs”), so the VA could “obtain treatment records
`from [his] private medical sources,” and VA Form 21-4142
`(“Authorization to Disclose Information to the Department
`of Veterans Affairs”), so the VA could “obtain the authori-
`zation to request treatment records from [his] private med-
`ical sources listed on the received VA Form 21-4142a.” S.A.
`45. The letter also indicated that if the VA did not hear
`
`
`
`Case: 24-1014 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 04/08/2024
`
`SOLOMON v. MCDONOUGH
`
`3
`
`from Mr. Solomon it “may make a decision” on his claim
`after 30 days. S.A. 46.
`In December 2019, Mr. Solomon submitted VA Form
`21-4138 (“Statement in Support of Claim”), not one of the
`forms listed in the November 2019 letter, and VA Form 21-
`4142a, one of the required forms. In these forms Mr. Solo-
`mon indicated that he saw a different doctor, Dr. Rafael, on
`December 6, 2019, after the Board had remanded his claim.
`On December 27, 2019, the VA Private Medical Records Re-
`trieval Center noted that the request for Mr. Solomon’s
`medical records was rejected because VA Form 21-4142,
`which gives authorization to the VA to obtain his treatment
`records from his private medical sources, was still missing.
`In May 2020, the VA sent Mr. Solomon a Supplemental
`Statement of the Case (“SSOC”) indicating that the only
`evidence it considered in reviewing his claim was the DBQ
`Wrist Conditions dated December 6, 2019, and the Veter-
`ans Affairs Medical Center treatment records from October
`6, 2010, through March 10, 2020. The letter accompanying
`the SSOC informed Mr. Solomon he had 30 days from the
`date of the letter (May 7, 2020) “to respond with additional
`comments or evidence.” S.A. 21. Mr. Solomon did not sup-
`ply any additional forms or evidence.
`On May 6, 2021, the Board denied Mr. Solomon an in-
`creased rating for his left wrist. The Board acknowledged
`in its decision “there [were] private medical treatment rec-
`ords that may have been relevant to [Mr. Solomon’s] claim
`that remain outstanding,” but determined that Mr. Solo-
`mon “had the opportunity to provide VA authorization to
`obtain any outstanding records from this provider on his
`behalf but failed to return a completed VA Form 21-4142.”
`S.A. 15. The Board determined the VA’s duty to assist was
`properly discharged because the VA “is only obligated to
`obtain records that are adequately identified and for which
`necessary releases have been submitted.” Id. (citing 38
`C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1)).
`
`
`
`Case: 24-1014 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 04/08/2024
`
`4
`
`SOLOMON v. MCDONOUGH
`
`On appeal to the Veterans Court, Mr. Solomon argued
`that the VA violated its duty to assist in obtaining medical
`records by not taking necessary steps to obtain his private
`treatment records. Before the Veterans Court, Mr. Solo-
`mon asserted that he “provided sufficient information to
`identify and obtain the records in question and, even if he
`hadn’t, notice that VA would stop seeking the records was
`circulated only internally and never sent to him.” S.A. 4.
`The Veterans Court found the record did not support either
`of these contentions and affirmed the Board’s decision.
`S.A. 5. This appeal followed.
`DISCUSSION
`The jurisdiction of this Court to review the decision 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 appeal, Mr. Solomon does not argue that the Vet-
`erans Court failed to properly interpret a statute or regu-
`lation or address a constitutional question. Rather, Mr.
`Solomon argues that the Veterans Court erred because
`“[t]hey didn’t take in account that the email that was sub-
`mitted internally.” Appellant Informal Opening Br. 1. The
`reference apparently is to an internal VA notice stating
`that the request to obtain Mr. Solomon’s medical records
`was rejected because VA Form 21-4121 was missing. See
`S.A. 25. We understand Mr. Solomon to be contending that
`he was not notified that he needed to submit the additional
`form (i.e., VA Form 21-4121) in order for the VA to obtain
`
`
`
`Case: 24-1014 Document: 17 Page: 5 Filed: 04/08/2024
`
`SOLOMON v. MCDONOUGH
`
`5
`
`his medical records or submit the records himself in order
`for his claim to go forward.
`We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Solomon’s appeal. The
`Veterans Court acknowledged that Mr. Solomon may not
`have received a notice that the VA would stop seeking his
`medical records. But the Veterans Court determined that
`the record reflected that Mr. Solomon was on notice that he
`needed to execute the required form that would allow the
`VA to obtain his records and that he had another oppor-
`tunity to provide the necessary forms after the SSOC is-
`sued.
` The Veterans Court affirmed “the Board’s
`determination that he was aware of the rejection of the pri-
`vate records retrieval request.” S.A. 4–5.
`Mr. Solomon asks us to review the Veterans Court’s
`factual determination that he was notified that he needed
`to provide the additional document (i.e., VA Form 21-4142)
`to allow the VA to obtain records or to obtain the docu-
`ments himself. We lack authority to review factual deter-
`minations, and we dismiss Mr. Solomon’s appeal for lack of
`jurisdiction.
`
`DISMISSED
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`