Albert J. Lirette v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ALBERT J. LIRETTE,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1857
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-5299, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: January 15, 2025
______________________
ALBERT J. LIRETTE, Houma, LA, pro se.
ALEXANDER BREWER, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also
represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.,
PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before DYK, PROST, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1857 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 01/15/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

LIRETTE v. MCDONOUGH 2
PER CURIAM.
Albert Lirette appeals pro se a decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed the decision by the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) rejecting his request
for an increased disability rating. We dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Lirette served honorably in the Army from
1967 to 1969, during which time he was wounded in
combat in Vietnam. Mr. Lirette was granted compensation
from the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) for several
disabilities, including PTSD, which was evaluated as
50% disabling. In October 2018, Mr. Lirette requested an
increased disability rating, which was denied by the VA
Regional Office in November 2018.
Mr. Lirette appealed to the Board, which affirmed in an
order dated July 27, 2022. In its order, the Board compared
Mr. Lirette’s medical records with the diagnostic criteria
for a 70% rating and concluded that his symptoms did
“not . . . approximate” such a rating. S. App’x 17.1 The
Board acknowledged Mr. Lirette’s lay assertions that his
symptoms justified a higher rating but found that the VA
treatment records, Mr. Lirette’s own reporting, and the
examiner’s observations showed that “his PTSD is
manifested by occupational and social impairment . . . but
not deficiencies in most areas, such as family relations,
judgment, thinking, or mood” that might justify a higher
rating. S. App’x 18.
In a February 23, 2024, decision, the Veterans Court
affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that “[t]he record
1 Citations to “S. App’x” refer to the supplemental
appendix filed by the government with its Second
Corrected Informal Response Brief.
Case: 24-1857 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 01/15/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

LIRETTE v. MCDONOUGH 3
plausibly support[ed]” the Board’s findings that
Mr. Lirette’s PTSD symptoms did not rise to the level of the
70% diagnostic criteria and that his lay assertions did not
compel a higher rating. S. App’x 4. Relying on our decision
in King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1344–46 (Fed. Cir.
2012), the Board determined that it was not required to
credit Mr. Lirette’s lay assertions over the medical
treatment reports. Mr. Lirette appeals.
DISCUSSION
Our “jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans
Court is limited.” Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2010). We may review the validity of a decision
with respect to a rule of law or interpretation of a statute
or regulation that was relied upon by the Veterans Court
in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). And unless a
constitutional challenge 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.” Id. § 7292(d)(2).
On appeal, Mr. Lirette does not challenge the validity
or interpretation of a statute or regulation, nor does he
present a constitutional argument concerning the Veteran
Court’s February 2024 decision. Mr. Lirette thus fails to
raise a challenge to the Veteran Courts’ decision that falls
within our appellate jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a),
(d)(2). We therefore dismiss Mr. Lirette’s appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
Costs
No costs.
Case: 24-1857 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 01/15/2025

-- 3 of 3 --