Oliver Shannon v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
OLIVER SHANNON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1784
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-7270, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
Jr, Judge Scott Laurer, Judge William S. Greenberg.
______________________
Decided: June 9, 2025
______________________
O LIVER SHANNON, Locust, NC, pro se.
L AUREL D ON H AVENS , III, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY , J R.,
P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ; MATTHEW ALBANESE , BRIAN D.
G RIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 24-1784 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

SHANNON v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE and B RYSON, Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Oliver Shannon appeals a decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) af-
firming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
(Board) denying a higher rating for his right knee disabili-
ties. Because Mr. Shannon raises issues we do not have
jurisdiction to review, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Shannon served in the U.S. Army from 1968 to
1971. S. Appx. 42.1 At issue here is the Veterans Court’s
decision related to the Board’s determination “the criteria
in excess of 10 percent based on right knee limitation of
motion, or for separate ratings for genu recurvatum or im-
pairment of the tibia or fibula, have not been met.”
S. Appx. 26. The Veterans Court held the Board did not
err when it denied a higher rating for Mr. Shannon’s right
knee disabilities. S. Appx. 12–13. Mr. Shannon timely ap-
peals.
D ISCUSSION
We have limited jurisdiction to review Veterans Court
decisions. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2010). Unless a constitutional issue is presented, 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). Even
when an argument is framed as one of statutory interpre-
tation, we lack jurisdiction if the argument ultimately
1 “S. Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix at-
tached to Appellee’s Informal Response Brief.
Case: 24-1784 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

SHANNON v. COLLINS 3
concerns an application of law to the facts. Delisle v.
McDonald, 789 F.3d 1372, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The Veterans Court rejected Mr. Shannon’s arguments
that (1) the Board failed to apply or misapplied several reg-
ulations; (2) the Board failed to consider his 1968 leg injury
and 1970 back injury for his right knee disability rating,
which has an effective date of October 6, 2011; and (3) the
Veterans Court should either grant service connection or
take some unspecified action on claims the Board did not
decide. S. Appx. 14–17. The Veterans Court explained Mr.
Shannon “disagrees with the Board’s decision but doesn’t
point to evidence that disputes the Board’s findings” and
held “[t]he Board didn’t clearly err when it weighed the ev-
idence.” S. Appx. 17.
On appeal, Mr. Shannon’s arguments are difficult to
parse. He lists, without explanation, the statutory and reg-
ulatory provisions and diagnostic codes (DC) the Board
cited in its challenged determination. Appellant’s Informal
Br. 1 (citing 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102,
3.321, 4.1–4.7, 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a; DC 5003, 5256,
5262, 5263); see also S. Appx. 26. He cites 38 U.S.C. § 7332,
also without explanation, which relates to confidentiality
of medical records “maintained in connection with the per-
formance of any program or activity . . . relating to drug
abuse, alcoholism or alcohol abuse, infection with the hu-
man immunodeficiency virus, or sickle cell anemia.” Ap-
pellant’s Informal Br. 2.
Pro se filings are construed liberally, Erickson v. Par-
dus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), but we cannot read in argu-
ments that were never made in the briefs. See Parks v.
Shinseki, 716 F.3d 581, 586 (Fed. Cir. 2013). At most, Mr.
Shannon challenges how certain diagnostic codes were ap-
plied, but whether a particular rating was correctly as-
signed requires application of law to fact that we do not
have jurisdiction to review. Middleton v. Shinseki, 727
F.3d 1172, 1177–78 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing 38 U.S.C.
Case: 24-1784 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

SHANNON v. COLLINS 4
§ 7292(d)(2)). We recognize Mr. Shannon has framed these
arguments in terms of statutory or regulatory interpreta-
tion and generally claims his constitutional right has been
violated. Appellant’s Informal Reply Br. 1–2, 6–7, 10.
Merely characterizing an argument as presenting a consti-
tutional issue, as Mr. Shannon does here, is insufficient to
confer jurisdiction. Flores v. Nicholson, 476 F.3d 1379,
1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Mr. Shannon makes additional arguments that gener-
ally seem to challenge determinations the Veterans Court
did not make on issues it was not presented, or otherwise
challenge the Veterans Court’s conclusion that his argu-
ment there was underdeveloped. Both are issues we lack
jurisdiction to review. Belcher v. West, 214 F.3d 1335, 1337
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding we lack jurisdiction to review an
issue or argument that was not raised to the Veterans
Court).
First, Mr. Shannon cites 38 U.S.C. § 20.1403, which de-
fines clear and unmistakable error (CUE), for “[k]nee tibia
and fibula.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 2; see also Appellant’s
Informal Reply Br. 5–6. But Mr. Shannon did not allege
CUE before the Veterans Court. S. Appx 21–23. Second,
Mr. Shannon disputes the 1982 denial of his “claim for lum-
bosacral strain with muscle spasms.” Appellant’s Informal
Br. 2–3; see also Appellant’s Informal Reply Br. 7–8. But
that claim was not before the Board and not addressed by
the Veterans Court. S. Appx. 42–43; S. Appx. 12–17. Fi-
nally, Mr. Shannon challenges the Veterans Court’s find-
ing that any records relating to a 1968 leg injury and a
1970 back injury are irrelevant to the rating for his right
knee disability, which has an effective date of October 6,
2011. Appellant’s Informal Br. 2; see also Appellant’s In-
formal Reply Br. 4–5. Mr. Shannon fails to present any
argument as to why these records were relevant and should
have been considered by the Veterans Court. Id.; Parks,
716 F.3d at 586 (“[I]t is one thing to read a record
Case: 24-1784 Document: 34 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

SHANNON v. COLLINS 5
sympathetically . . . it is quite another to read into the rec-
ord an argument that had never been made.”).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Shannon’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Because Mr. Shan-
non’s appeal does not present issues within our limited
jurisdiction, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1784 Document: 34 Page: 5 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 5 of 5 --