Angel M. Pichardo v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ANGEL M. PICHARDO,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-1007
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-8676, Judge Grant Jaquith.
______________________
Decided: April 6, 2022
______________________
ANGEL M. P ICHARDO, Sierra Vista, AZ, pro se.
D ANIEL F ALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON , ERIC P. BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Case: 22-1007 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 04/06/2022

-- 1 of 4 --

PICHARDO v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and HUGHES ,
Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Angel M. Pichardo appeals a memorandum decision of
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims,
which affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Pichardo
v. McDonough, No. 19-8676, 2021 WL 1204140 (Vet. App.
Mar. 31, 2021) (Veterans Court Decision). Because we lack
jurisdiction over Mr. Pichardo’s appeal, we dismiss.
I
Mr. Pichardo served in the Army from December 1968
through August 1970, including combat in Vietnam. Eight
years after leaving the service, he wrote a letter to the De-
partment of Veterans Affairs detailing his battle with groin
conditions. In those eight years, Mr. Pichardo had three
surgeries to remove groin tumors, at least one of which was
described as a malignant lesion. The VA construed the let-
ter as seeking disability compensation, and one year later,
it denied Mr. Pichardo’s claim based on a lack of service
connection.
In 1990, Mr. Pichardo reopened his groin disability
claim, arguing that disability should “be considered [a] re-
sidual of Agent Orange exposure.” Veterans Court Decision
at *2. In addition to his struggles with groin tumors,
Mr. Pichardo complained of chronic leg pain. Also, at some
point during processing of this claim, he sought compensa-
tion for nerve pain in his upper extremities.
Nearly fifteen years later, the VA issued a decision on
Mr. Pichardo’s reopened claims. It found Mr. Pichardo’s
groin conditions were not entitled to a presumption of ser-
vice connection under the Agent Orange Act, Pub. L. No.
102-4, 105 Stat. 11 (1991). Id. at *7. And because Mr.
Pichardo had failed to provide evidence of service connec-
tion, the Board denied him compensation for his groin dis-
ability. It also found that Mr. Pichardo had failed to prove
Case: 22-1007 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 04/06/2022

-- 2 of 4 --

PICHARDO v. MCDONOUGH 3
service connection for his upper extremity pain. The VA
did, however, grant Mr. Pichardo service connection for leg
pain—assigning him a 10 percent rating for peripheral
neuropathy of the left lower extremity. Mr. Pichardo did
not appeal those determinations.
In 2012, Mr. Pichardo again sought to reopen his
claims. After a VA examination, he was diagnosed with
peripheral neuropathy in his extremities, secondary to di-
abetes. The VA then assigned him a 30 percent rating for
his left arm, a 20 percent rating for his right arm, and in-
creased his left leg rating to 20 percent—all of which were
effective as of September 2010. Still, the VA denied
Mr. Pichardo service connection for his groin disability.
Also, at some point during these proceedings, Mr. Pichardo
sought compensation for a mammary gland condition,
which the VA denied.
Mr. Pichardo appealed to the Board, seeking higher
ratings for his neuropathy and compensation for his groin
condition. The Board sustained the VA’s conclusions, al-
beit for slightly different reasons. Rather than consider the
merits of Mr. Pichardo’s groin disability claim, the Board
refused to reopen it. Specifically, the Board reversed the
VA’s determination that Mr. Pichardo had submitted “new
and material evidence.” See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (allowing
claimants to reopen a finally adjudicated claim by provid-
ing such evidence). On the neuropathy claims, the Board
agreed with the VA’s rating decisions. In passing, the
Board also noted how Mr. Pichardo failed to appeal the
VA’s denial of his mammary gland condition claim in a
timely fashion.
Mr. Pichardo then appealed to the Veterans Court. He
argued “that his exposure to Agent Orange and the delayed
onset of its effects entitle him to service connection for a
mammary gland condition, a groin disability, and in-
creased ratings for his peripheral neuropathy claim.” Vet-
erans Court Decision at *4. The Veterans Court did not
Case: 22-1007 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 04/06/2022

-- 3 of 4 --

PICHARDO v. MCDONOUGH 4
agree and, accordingly, affirmed the Board’s decision.
Mr. Pichardo appeals.
II
Our jurisdiction over decisions of the Veterans Court is
limited. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1), we must “decide all
relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitu-
tional and statutory provisions.” On the other hand, except
in appeals presenting a constitutional issue, we “may not
review [] a challenge to a factual determination[], or [] a
challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a
particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2).
We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Pichardo’s appeal. He
asks us to “decide this appeal taking all evidence into con-
sideration.” Appellant’s Informal Opening Br. at 3; Appel-
lant’s Informal Reply Br. at 1. And he claims the benefit-
of-the-doubt rule, 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), and general princi-
ples relating to service connection, 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, are in
his favor. Appellant’s Informal Opening Br. at 1. Con-
strued liberally, Mr. Pichardo asks us to reweigh the facts
of his case and review how the Veterans Court applied the
law. But we lack jurisdiction to undertake either of those
tasks. Mr. Pichardo makes no claim that the Board or Vet-
erans Court committed an error of law, like misinterpret-
ing a statute or regulation. Accordingly, he has not raised
an argument within the scope of our jurisdiction.
III
Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Pichardo’s ap-
peal, we must dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 22-1007 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 04/06/2022

-- 4 of 4 --