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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
1 All SAppx. citations herein refer to the appendix
filed concurrently with Appellee’s brief.
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
2 Mr. Sorrell separately sought a compensable disa-
bility rating for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS),
and in April 2019, the Board determined that he was enti-
tled to a disability rating for CTS at 10 percent between
May 2012 and March 2014 and at a higher disability rating
after March 2014. See SAppx. 36–40.
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.
3 Because Mr. Sorrell filed his brief via Form 13 and
a separately-paginated narrative, citations herein to Mr.
Sorrell’s opening brief refer to the ECF pagination therefor.
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
4 To the extent that Mr. Sorrell argues that the Vet-
erans Court misconstrued
38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321 and 3.324 by
failing to consider the compensability of his right wrist cyst
in combination with his CTS and arthritis claims, see Ap-
pellant’s Br. 5–7, we disagree. Mr. Sorrell’s CTS was sep-
arately awarded a compensable rating, and thus it may not
be combined with his right wrist cyst. See
38 C.F.R.
§ 3.324. Moreover, Mr. Sorrell’s arthritis claim, secondary
to his right wrist cyst, is on remand to the Board and not
properly before us.
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.
5 Although Mr. Sorrell alleges a constitutional viola-
tion, he provides no detail or support for his claim. See Ap-
pellant’s Br. at 2, 4. We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Sorrell’s
claim, as it is “constitutional in name only.” Helfer v. West,
174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
