David O. Keel v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DAVID O. KEEL,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1768
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 21-7020, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: October 9, 2024
______________________
D AVID O. K EEL , Hualapai, AZ, pro se.
COLLIN T. MATHIAS , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. H OCKEY , J R., P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before L OURIE, BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1768 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 10/09/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

KEEL v. MCDONOUGH 2
P ER CURIAM .
David O. Keel appeals from a decision of the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming
the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”)
denying several claims for disability benefits. Because we
lack jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal.
I
Mr. Keel, a United States Army veteran, has filed nu-
merous requests for disability benefits from the Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”).
Mr. Keel’s appeal relates to seven claims he filed in
2011: (1) three claims to reopen previously-denied claims
for service-connected disability compensation for a bilat-
eral hip disorder, gastroesophageal reflux disease
(“GERD”), and ischemic heart disease (“IHD”); (2) three
new claims for service-connected disability compensation
for a gastrointestinal disorder other than GERD, a sinus
disorder, and a lower back disorder; and (3) one new claim
for total disability due to individual unemployability
(“TDIU”) due to service-connected disabilities.
After a VA regional office denied all seven claims, Mr.
Keel appealed to the Board. In July 2018, after a hearing,
the Board issued a decision denying Mr. Keel’s requests to
reopen the previously-denied claims and remanding the re-
maining four claims for further record development.
Mr. Keel then appealed to the Veterans Court, where
he alleged – and the Secretary conceded – that he had not
been provided an opportunity to review and correct the
transcript of the Board’s hearing. Upon the Secretary’s re-
quest, the Veterans Court vacated the Board’s 2018 deci-
sion and remanded for the Board to provide Mr. Keel an
opportunity to correct errors in the transcript.
In an October 2021 decision, the Board denied all seven
of Mr. Keel’s claims. As it had in 2018, the Board again
Case: 24-1768 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 10/09/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

KEEL v. MCDONOUGH 3
denied Mr. Keel’s three requests to reopen the previously-
denied claims, finding that Mr. Keel had failed to submit
sufficient new and relevant evidence to warrant reopening,
as required by 38 U.S.C. § 7104(b). See also 38 U.S.C.
§ 5108(a). The Board also denied Mr. Keel’s three new
claims for service-connected benefits because Mr. Keel re-
fused, without good cause, to participate in scheduled med-
ical examinations, which “would have been helpful in the
adjudication” of Mr. Keel’s claims. S. App’x 43.1 Accord-
ingly, the Board found “that the preponderance of the evi-
dence is against a finding” that Mr. Keel’s gastrointestinal
disorder other than GERD, sinus disorder, or lower back
disorder were related to his service. S. App’x 43-46. Lastly,
the Board denied Mr. Keel’s TDIU claim because he “cur-
rently ha[d] no service-connected disabilities” to support
entitlement to TDIU. S. App’x 47.
Mr. Keel once again appealed to the Veterans Court,
which affirmed the Board’s denial of all seven claims, after
determining that Mr. Keel “ha[d] not identified any specific
error of law or fact in the Board decision.” S. App’x 3. This
timely appeal followed.
II
Our jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court
is limited by statute. We are not authorized to hear ap-
peals challenging factual determinations or the application
of a law or regulation to the facts of a particular case. See
38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
Mr. Keel’s appeal only challenges “factual details of
veterans benefits cases, such as whether the veteran’s dis-
ability is service connected, when it began, and the extent
of the disability.” Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1381-
82 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Mr. Keel’s allegation that the VA
1 References to S. App’x refer to the Supplemental
Appendix submitted with the Secretary’s brief.
Case: 24-1768 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 10/09/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

KEEL v. MCDONOUGH 4
destroyed his records is also a factual matter that we lack
power to review. See Keel v. Nicholson, 241 F. App’x 702,
705 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting allegations that VA tampered
with records are “challenges to factual matters that we can-
not review”). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review
any part of this appeal.
III
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Mr. Keel’s appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1768 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 10/09/2024

-- 4 of 4 --