Lawrence E. Woznick v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LAWRENCE E. WOZNICK,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-2226
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20-7181, Judge Coral Wong Pi-
etsch.
______________________
Decided: June 9, 2023
______________________
L AWRENCE E. WOZNICK, Mogadore, OH, pro se.
L AURA O FFENBACHER ARADI, Civil Division, Commer-
cial Litigation Branch, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also
represented by BRIAN M. B OYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN,
P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY .
______________________
Case: 22-2226 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 1 of 4 --

WOZNICK v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, STOLL and CUNNINGHAM ,
Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Lawrence E. Woznick appeals a decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacating the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of entitlement to a
higher level of special monthly compensation (SMC) and
remanding for the Board to consider whether he is entitled
to a higher SMC. Because we do not have jurisdiction to
hear Mr. Woznick’s appeal, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Woznick served in the Marine Corps from July
1969 to July 1972. As of June 2020, the Board awarded
Mr. Woznick SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(l) and separately
under § 1114(s) based on his 60% disability rating for
prostatitis and his 100% disability rating for PTSD. The
Board denied, however, Mr. Woznick’s request for higher
SMC under § 1114(r) because it found he did not meet the
requisite criteria under § 1114(o) or qualify for the
intermediate rate between § 1114(n) and (o) plus the rating
under § 1114(k). App’x 116–17. Specifically, the Board
found that his disabilities do not combine to a SMC rate
higher than § 1114(l). App’x 117.
Mr. Woznick appealed to the Veterans Court. The
Veterans Court determined the Board’s denial of SMC
under § 1114(r) was erroneous because the Board did not
adequately explain why Mr. Woznick did not satisfy the
requirements under § 1114(o), including whether he was
entitled to a higher rating under § 1114(o) based on two or
more ratings under § 1114(l). App’x 5. Regarding the
Board’s award under § 1114(l), the Veterans Court
determined it was unclear whether the Board’s award was
based on a combination of Mr. Woznick’s PTSD and
prostatitis disabilities or whether each disability rating
would independently qualify for SMC under § 1114(l).
Case: 22-2226 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 2 of 4 --

WOZNICK v. MCDONOUGH 3
App’x 5. Finally, the Veterans Court declined to reverse
the Board’s decision because the Board did not consider
whether Mr. Woznick’s conditions satisfied other
requirements under § 1114(r). App’x 5. As a result, the
Veterans Court held it could not make the factual findings
necessary to determine whether Mr. Woznick qualified for
heightened SMC and accordingly remanded for the Board
to make those findings in the first instance. App’x 6. Mr.
Woznick appeals.
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction over decisions of the Veterans Court is
limited. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we may review “the
validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of
law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation
thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter)
that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the
decision.” Except with respect to constitutional issues, we
“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).
On appeal, Mr. Woznick argues the Veterans Court
erred in declining to award him a higher-rated SMC be-
cause he has two separate claims based on separate disa-
bilities that the Board improperly combined, resulting in
compensation at a lower rate than he is entitled to under
§ 1114(r). Appellant’s Informal Br. at 2. Mr. Woznick’s ar-
guments challenge only the Board’s determination that he
is not entitled to a higher SMC rating because he does meet
the factual predicates for that rating. Because we lack ju-
risdiction to review “a challenge to a law or regulation as
applied to the facts,” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), we do have not
have jurisdiction over Mr. Woznick’s appeal. Moreover, the
Veterans Court’s remand order is not a final order and the
narrow criteria justifying review of an interlocutory order
are not present in this case. See Williams v. Principi, 275
F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The question of whether
Case: 22-2226 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 3 of 4 --

WOZNICK v. MCDONOUGH 4
Mr. Woznick qualifies for a higher SMC rating is properly
back before the Board. Because we lack jurisdiction, we
dismiss Mr. Woznick’s appeal.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 22-2226 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 4 of 4 --