Henry F. Ratliff v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
HENRY F. RATLIFF,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2021-1618
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-6568, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: February 18, 2022
______________________
MEGHAN G ENTILE, Veterans Legal Advocacy Group, Ar-
lington, VA, argued for claimant-appellant. Also repre-
sented by HAROLD HAMILTON H OFFMAN, III.
SARAH E. K RAMER , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. B OYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, MARTIN F.
HOCKEY , J R.; EVAN SCOTT G RANT , Y. K EN L EE , Office of
Case: 21-1618 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 02/18/2022

-- 1 of 2 --

RATLIFF v. MCDONOUGH 2
General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before H UGHES , MAYER , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Henry Ratliff appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims. The Veterans Court affirmed a deci-
sion of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, denying Mr. Rat-
liff’s claims for disability compensation due to tinnitus. On
appeal, Mr. Ratliff argues that the Veterans Court misap-
plied its own precedent regarding credibility determina-
tions and erred in making its harmless error
determination. Because Mr. Ratliff’s arguments both in-
volve an application of law to fact, they are beyond our ju-
risdiction to consider. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); King v.
Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accord-
ingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
No costs.
Case: 21-1618 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 02/18/2022

-- 2 of 2 --