Full Opinion

Case: 25-1299 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 10/29/2026 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ANTHONY ARMAND POLICH, Claimant-Appellant v. DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2025-1299 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 23-3069, Senior Judge William A. Moorman. ______________________ Decided: October 29, 2026 ______________________ KENNETH DOJAQUEZ, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant. TANYA KOENIG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE; CARLING KAY BENNETT, DEREK SCADDEN, Case: 25-1299 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 10/29/2026 2 POLICH v. COLLINS Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________ Before CHEN, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges. CHEN, Circuit Judge. Anthony Polich appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court). Polich v. McDonough, 2024 WL 4002743 (Vet. App. Aug. 30, 2024) (Decision). The Veterans Court affirmed the de- cision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denying an increase in Mr. Polich’s disability rating for symptoms re- lated to traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Here, Mr. Polich does not raise a legal issue over which we have jurisdiction. We dismiss. BACKGROUND Mr. Polich served honorably on active duty in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969. Decision, 2024 WL 4002743, at *1. He was medically retired due to injuries he sustained in Vietnam. Id. In 1997, Mr. Polich sought ben- efits for his PTSD symptoms. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded him service connection for PTSD with a rating of 30%. Id. By 2002, his PTSD disability rating increased to 50%. Id. In 2010, Mr. Polich claimed service connection for re- siduals of a TBI. Id. In 2013, VA granted the claim, which included Mr. Polich’s symptoms of “short-term memory loss and confusion.” Id. VA, however, assigned a 0% disa- bility rating for residuals of a TBI, noting that Mr. Polich’s memory loss was “unlikely due to his TBI” and it was “likely that PTSD-type symptoms, slower cognitive pro- cessing speed, and poor sleep contributed to his memory impairment at that time.” Id. (alterations adopted). Reports from later VA examinations concurred. Those examinations, conducted in 2019, concluded that Case: 25-1299 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 10/29/2026 POLICH v. COLLINS 3 Mr. Polich had reported progressively worsening short- term memory loss problems since the 1990s, but because of the “date of onset provided by the veteran, [they] [are] less likely as not due to his TBI because TBI residuals begin around the time of the injury, not decades later.” Id. at *2 (internal quotation marks omitted). The 2019 TBI exam- iner was aware of Mr. Polich’s diagnoses of PTSD and TBI. Id. She was, however, “unable to opine on what portion of the soldier’s reported . . . symptoms are due to the residu- als of his TBI alone without resorting to pure speculation due to the common overlapping of symptoms identified for both conditions.” Id. (alteration adopted). VA subsequently continued Mr. Polich’s 50% rating for PTSD and 0% rating for TBI residuals based on its evalua- tion of which diagnosis “provide[d] the greater benefit.” Id. This evaluation represented a 50% rating “for the com- bined effects of PTSD and TBI” because under the rating criteria for TBI, Mr. Polich’s symptoms would warrant a 40% rating. Id. at *3 (alterations adopted). VA thus kept the 50% rating for PTSD instead of the potential 40% rat- ing for TBI because the higher rating provided a greater benefit to Mr. Polich. The Board agreed with that conclusion, id., and the Veterans Court affirmed. Id. at *1. Mr. Polich timely ap- pealed. DISCUSSION Mr. Polich’s arguments do not raise a legal issue over which we have jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). First, we disagree with Mr. Polich that the Veterans Court interpreted 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, DC 8045. See Appel- lant Br. 10. Rather, the court applied that regulation to the record before it. Under that regulation, “[i]f the mani- festations of two or more conditions cannot be clearly sep- arated,” VA is to “assign a single evaluation under Case: 25-1299 Document: 46 Page: 4 Filed: 10/29/2026 4 POLICH v. COLLINS whichever set of diagnostic criteria allows the better as- sessment of overall impaired functioning due to both con- ditions.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, DC 8045 note 1. The Veterans Court found that Mr. Polich had failed to identify any evi- dence demonstrating that his “memory impairments are separable from his PTSD.” Decision, 2024 WL 4002743, at *5. In fact, it explained that “the record . . . directly con- tradicts his theory.” Id. at *6. For support, the Veterans Court quoted the VA examiner report that concluded Mr. Polich’s memory impairment was unlikely “due to his TBI” because his symptoms began decades after the trig- gering injury. Id. That same examiner, moreover, deemed it “pure speculation” to attempt to definitively assign the source of Mr. Polich’s memory impairment to either PTSD or TBI. Id. Mr. Polich’s disagreement with Veterans Court’s analysis is a factual issue that we lack jurisdiction over. See Amberman v. Shinseki, 570 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (determining that the Veterans Court’s findings of whether the “manifestations of one mental disorder” are “also manifestations of . . . [an]other” is a factual finding outside our jurisdiction). The remainder of Mr. Polich’s arguments are predi- cated on his contention that the Board favorably deter- mined that his memory impairment resulted from TBI, and TBI alone. See, e.g., Appellant Br. 24 (“On appeal the Board confirms that his TBI causes the said memory im- pairments.”). The Veterans Court found, however, that “[t]his is not correct.” Decision, 2024 WL 4002743, at *5. “The Board simply did not make the finding [Mr. Polich] suggests it did.” Id. “The Board found that the evidence did not show that the appellant’s memory symptoms could be separated from his PTSD.” Id. Mr. Polich’s contentions to the contrary are factual issues we cannot review. Relat- edly, to the extent Mr. Polich argues that the VA, Board, or Veterans Court erred in selecting the correct diagnosis code under which to classify his symptoms, that too is a question Case: 25-1299 Document: 46 Page: 5 Filed: 10/29/2026 POLICH v. COLLINS 5 of application of law to fact we cannot review. Delisle v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1372, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015). CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Polich’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss. DISMISSED