William V. Sears, Jr. v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
WILLIAM V. SEARS, JR.,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2021-1450
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-5881, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: September 14, 2021
______________________
WILLIAM V. SEARS , J R., San Antonio, TX, pro se.
MATTHEW P AUL R OCHE, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY , J R., ELIZABETH
MARIE HOSFORD; BRIAN D. G RIFFIN, J ONATHAN K RISCH , Of-
fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet-
erans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 21-1450 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 09/14/2021

-- 1 of 5 --

SEARS v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before P ROST , CHEN, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
William Sears, a veteran of the U.S. Army, appeals the
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims in Sears v. Wilkie, No. 19-5881, 2020 WL 5200446
(Vet. App. Aug. 25, 2020). Mr. Sears primarily challenges
the Veterans Court’s factual determinations or applica-
tions of law to fact, issues over which we lack jurisdiction.
To the extent his informal brief can be liberally construed
as raising a legal argument, it lacks merit. For the reasons
given below, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
I
Mr. Sears served in the Army from September 1988 to
May 1989 and from January to September 1991. S.A. 2,
23.1 He has filed claims seeking service connection and
compensation for a number of disabilities.
• In November 1991, Mr. Sears sought compensation
for a right ankle disability, and that claim was
granted. S.A. 3.
• On November 15, 1999, Mr. Sears made a claim for
service connection for a back disability that was in-
itially denied, but after filing a claim of clear and
unmistakable error, he was ultimately granted ser-
vice connection for the spine disability, effective No-
vember 15, 1999. S.A. 4. He was assigned a 10%
rating for degenerative disc disease (DDD) from No-
vember 15, 1999, to June 28, 2013, and a 20% rating
thereafter. S.A. 5.
1 Citations to S.A. refer to the supplemental appen-
dix filed by Respondent-Appellee.
Case: 21-1450 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 09/14/2021

-- 2 of 5 --

SEARS v. MCDONOUGH 3
• On June 28, 2013, Mr. Sears filed a claim for service
connection for right and left hip disorders, including
right and left hip degenerative joint disease (DJD),
which was granted in February 2017 for right and
left hip DJD. For the left hip, he was rated 10% for
limited extension since June 28, 2013, but that rat-
ing was replaced with a 50% rating from December
15, 2016. S.A. 6. For the right hip, since June 28,
2013, Mr. Sears had a 10% rating. S.A. 6–7.
• In February 2017, Mr. Sears was awarded disability
compensation for thoracic-spine-related radiculopa-
thy in both legs, with 10% ratings since October 30,
2014. S.A. 6.
Mr. Sears appealed the effective dates and the ratings
of his thoracic spine and hip disabilities to the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals, which denied the appeals except to in-
crease the right and left hip radiculopathy ratings from
10% to 20%. S.A. 22–23.
He then appealed the same issues to the Veterans
Court. In a single-judge memorandum decision, the Veter-
ans Court affirmed the Board’s ruling, except to correct a
typographical error in the Board’s order. S.A. 3, 6. After a
motion for reconsideration, a panel ordered that the single-
judge decision remain the decision of the Court and entered
judgment on December 2, 2020. Mr. Sears timely appeals.
II
We have limited jurisdiction over appeals from the Vet-
erans Court. We decide “all relevant questions of law, in-
cluding interpreting constitutional and statutory
provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). We review the Veterans
Court’s legal determinations de novo. Prenzler v. Derwin-
ski, 928 F.2d 392, 393 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Except to the extent
that an appeal presents a constitutional issue, we cannot
review a challenge to a factual determination or a chal-
lenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a case.
Case: 21-1450 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 09/14/2021

-- 3 of 5 --

SEARS v. MCDONOUGH 4
38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); see Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d
1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
III
Most of the arguments raised by Mr. Sears involve fac-
tual determinations or the application of law to fact, which
we lack jurisdiction to consider. Mr. Sears has potentially
made one legal argument within our jurisdiction. To the
extent Mr. Sears argues that the Veterans Court misinter-
preted its standard of review to be deferential to or to re-
quire adoption of the Secretary’s litigation position, rather
than considering Mr. Sears’s arguments, we agree this is a
legal argument within our jurisdiction. Garrison v. Nichol-
son, 494 F.3d 1366, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
But it is a legal argument without merit because the
Veterans Court did not simply adopt the Secretary’s argu-
ments. The Veterans Court cited and used the correct
standards of review for the relevant issues.2 Both the as-
signment of a disability rating and the determination of an
effective date are factual findings, which the Veterans
Court reviews for clear error. Pierce v. Principi, 18 Vet.
App. 440, 443 (1990) (disability rating); Evans v. West, 12
Vet. App. 396, 401 (1999) (effective date). The Veterans
Court’s decision correctly identified and explained the
“clear error” standard of review for both the assignment of
a disability rating and the determination of an effective
date. S.A. 7–8.
Nor did the Veterans Court fail to review any legal
questions under the correct de novo standard. See Butts v.
Brown, 5 Vet. App. 532, 539 (1993). Indeed, the only pur-
ported “conclusions of law” that Mr. Sears argues should
not have received deference regard the assignment of a
2 For the same reason, the Veterans Court did not
violate Mr. Sears’s procedural due process rights by sup-
posedly adopting the Secretary’s position.
Case: 21-1450 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 09/14/2021

-- 4 of 5 --

SEARS v. MCDONOUGH 5
disability rating and the effective date. But, as we just ex-
plained, these are actually questions of fact, which the Vet-
erans Court properly reviewed for clear error.
V
We have carefully considered all the other arguments
Mr. Sears raised. Because they all involve factual determi-
nations or application of law to fact, we lack jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss the remainder
of the case for lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 21-1450 Document: 17 Page: 5 Filed: 09/14/2021

-- 5 of 5 --