Michael Gregg O'connell v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHAEL GREGG O'CONNELL,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1277
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-1720, Judge Coral Wong Pi-
etsch.
______________________
Decided: June 4, 2024
______________________
MICHAEL G REGG O'CONNELL , Raynham, MA, pro se.
MATTHEW J UDE CARHART , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. B OYNTON, CLAUDIA B URKE, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before P ROST , T ARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1277 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 06/04/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

O' CONNELL v. MCDONOUGH 2
P ER CURIAM .
Michael Gregg O’Connell served in the United States
Marine Corps from April 1983 to April 1987, spending
much of that period at Camp Lejeune. In 2010, Mr. O’Con-
nell applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for
disability benefits, claiming entitlement based on several
conditions, including an inability to have children. Mr.
O’Connell alleged that these conditions were connected to
his service—specifically, to his exposure to contaminated
water at Camp Lejeune.
In a 2012 rating decision, the relevant VA regional of-
fice found no service connection for the conditions now at
issue, including loss of use of a creative organ and inability
to have children. Mr. O’Connell submitted a notice of dis-
agreement with that determination, and the Board of Vet-
erans’ Appeals remanded the dispute of this claim to the
regional office several times between 2012 and 2020 for fur-
ther examinations and record development. Eventually, in
a March 2022 decision, the Board denied this disputed
claim, determining that, although Mr. O’Connell had been
exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, he lacked
a diagnosis of infertility and the evidence showed that any
such disability, if found, was less likely than not related to
contaminated water exposure or any service-connected dis-
ability. Supplemental Appendix (SAppx)17–23. The
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Vet-
erans Court) affirmed the Board’s decision. O’Connell v.
McDonough, No. 22-1720, 2023 WL 6210881 (Vet. App.
Sept. 25, 2023).
Mr. O’Connell appeals the Veterans Court’s decision,
presenting three arguments to this court. First, Mr. O’Con-
nell argues that the Veterans Court “failed to recognize the
findings of the ATSDR,” seemingly referring to the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “and its water
modeling of the Camp Le[j]eune toxic chemicals and their
effects on humans.” Appellant’s Informal Br. at 2. Second,
Case: 24-1277 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 06/04/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

O' CONNELL v. MCDONOUGH 3
Mr. O’Connell argues that the Board did not give adequate
weight to a book that he had cited as evidence to support
his claim. Mr. O’Connell alleges that the Board failed to
recognize the academic credentials of one of the book’s au-
thors and suggests that the author was more qualified than
an expert whose opinion the Board credited. Third, Mr.
O’Connell argues that the Board erred by failing to men-
tion several specific chemicals that he alleges were present
at Camp Lejeune.
The statute defining our jurisdiction declares that,
when no constitutional issue is presented, our authority is
limited to addressing legal issues decided by the Veterans
Court, 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), and we “may not review . . . a
challenge to a factual determination, or . . . a challenge to
a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular
case,” § 7292(d)(2). See § 7292(a), (c), (d). Under the stat-
ute, we lack the authority to address Mr. O’Connell’s argu-
ments and hence lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
Mr. O’Connell challenges only the Veterans Court’s af-
firmance of the Board’s factual determinations and the
Board’s application of law to facts, and he neither raises a
constitutional issue nor identifies a legal issue decided by
the Veterans Court. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 1–2 (Mr.
O’Connell’s statement that the Veterans Court’s decision
did not “involve the validity or interpretation of a statute
or regulation” and did not “decide constitutional issues”).
We may not address Mr. O’Connell’s challenges to the
weighing of evidence. See Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330,
1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The weighing of this [record] evi-
dence is not within our appellate jurisdiction.”). Moreover,
there is no apparent decision by the Veterans Court, ex-
press or implied, regarding the Agency for Toxic Sub-
stances and Disease Registry, much less a decision about a
legal issue involving the registry, as Mr. O’Connell did not
present an argument to the Veterans Court about the reg-
istry. See SAppx26–58.
Case: 24-1277 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 06/04/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

O' CONNELL v. MCDONOUGH 4
Because we do not have the authority to review Mr.
O’Connell’s challenges to the Veterans Court’s decision, we
must dismiss his appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdic-
tion.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
DISMISSED
Case: 24-1277 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 06/04/2024

-- 4 of 4 --