William P. Jordan, Iii v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
WILLIAM P. JORDAN, III,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1323
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-697, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: July 17, 2024
______________________
WILLIAM P LEAS J ORDAN, III, Lake Isabella, CA, pro se.
ALEXANDER BREWER , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY , J R., ELIZABETH
MARIE H OSFORD, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before CHEN, STOLL , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1323 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 07/17/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

JORDAN v. MCDONOUGH 2
P ER CURIAM .
William P. Jordan, III, seeks a higher disability rating
under diagnostic code (DC) 5003-5260 for arthritis in both
knees.1 The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denied
Mr. Jordan a higher rating, finding he did not meet the req-
uisite criteria. The United States Court of Appeals for Vet-
erans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed the portion of the
Board’s decision regarding DC 5260 and remanded the por-
tion regarding DC 5003. Mr. Jordan appeals the portion of
the Veterans Court’s decision affirming the denial of a
higher rating under DC 5260. For the following reasons,
we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
I.
Mr. Jordan served in the United States Marine Corps
from 1969 to 1971. Jordan v. McDonough, No. 23-0697,
2023 WL 8272172, at *1 (Vet. App. Nov. 30, 2023) (Deci-
sion). In 2011, he filed a claim for bilateral arthritic knee
pain related to his service. Id. Mr. Jordan underwent a
medical examination to assess his knee pain in 2013. Id.
After that examination, the regional office of the Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted him a ten percent
disability rating under DC 5003-5260. Id. Mr. Jordan also
underwent additional examinations in 2019 and 2020. Id.
Relevant to this appeal, Mr. Jordan sought a higher
rating from the VA. After a complex procedural history, in
a January 2023 decision, the Board denied a higher rating
under DC 5260. Appx. 8, 22.2 It also found that
1 Hyphenated diagnostic codes are used when a rat-
ing under one code requires referring to an additional code
to identify the basis for the evaluation.
2 “Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
with the government’s response brief, ECF No. 7-2.
Case: 24-1323 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 07/17/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

JORDAN v. MCDONOUGH 3
Mr. Jordan did not qualify for a higher rating under
DC 5003. Id. at 8, 23.
Before the Veterans Court, Mr. Jordan asserted that
the “Board erred by (1) misreading and mischaracterizing
his VA exam reports, (2) not affording his lay evidence pro-
bative weight, and (3) misapplying 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45,
and 4.59.” Decision, 2023 WL 8272172, at *1. The Veter-
ans Court affirmed the Board’s denial of a higher rating
under DC 5260. It found that the Board had not erred in
relying on the three prior examinations, particularly since
Mr. Jordan twice failed to appear for what would have been
the fourth examination. Id. at *2. It also found no issue
with the Board’s decision not to afford his lay evidence pro-
bative weight or with the Board’s discussion of 38 C.F.R.
§§ 4.40, 4.45, and 4.59. Id.; Appx. 16–25. The Veterans
Court, however, remanded the Board’s decision to deny an
increased rating under DC 5003 because the Board’s rea-
soning was “inadequately explained.” Decision, 2023 WL
8272172, at *3.
Mr. Jordan timely appeals the Veterans Court’s deci-
sion to affirm the Board’s denial of a higher rating under
DC 5260.3
II.
Mr. Jordan asks that we reverse the Veterans Court
because it failed to review clearly erroneous findings of fact
and questions of law and based its decision on those incor-
rect factual findings and legal conclusions. Appellant’s In-
formal Opening Br. at 5. His main contentions are that the
Veterans Court ignored favorable medical evidence and
misapplied 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, and 4.59 by ignoring
certain functional-loss factors. In Mr. Jordan’s view, if the
Veterans Court properly reviewed his case, then he should
3 The Veterans Court’s remand under DC 5003 is not
at issue on this appeal.
Case: 24-1323 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 07/17/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

JORDAN v. MCDONOUGH 4
have received the highest possible rating under DC 5260.
Id. at 21.
We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Congress has
limited our jurisdiction to decide “questions of law, includ-
ing interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions.”
38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). Unless an appeal presents a consti-
tutional issue, we “may not review (A) a challenge to a fac-
tual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation
as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2).
Mr. Jordan has not presented a question of law for us
to review. His argument that the Veterans Court did not
properly consider medical evidence amounts to a challenge
to the Veterans Court’s factual determinations, and his
other argument challenges the Veterans Court’s review of
the Board’s application of certain regulations to the facts of
this case. We lack jurisdiction over both challenges. See
38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
That Mr. Jordan frames his contentions as due process
arguments does not confer jurisdiction. Mr. Jordan “has
simply put a ‘due process’ label on his contention that he
should have prevailed.” Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335
(Fed. Cir. 1999). We lack jurisdiction over arguments that
are “constitutional in name only.” Id.
III.
We have considered Mr. Jordan’s other arguments and
find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we dismiss this ap-
peal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1323 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 07/17/2024

-- 4 of 4 --