Chapman v. McDonough

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: March 15, 2024
• Docket: 23-1834
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-1834 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 03/15/2024

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RONALD LOUIS CHAPMAN, SR., Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2023-1834 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 21-4919, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr. ______________________

Decided: March 15, 2024 ______________________

RONALD LOUIS CHAPMAN, SR., Zachary, LA, pro se.

GALINA I. FOMENKOVA, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, Office of Gen- eral Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Af- fairs, Washington, DC. Case: 23-1834 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 03/15/2024

______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and DYK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Ronald L. Chapman appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) that af- firmed in part a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board). Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Chapman’s appeal, we dismiss. BACKGROUND Mr. Chapman served on active duty in the U.S. Army from June 1980 to February 1981. Veterans Court Deci- sion at 2. 1 In February 1981, he applied for disability ben- efits for a left ankle condition. Id. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted a service connection but as- signed a 0% rating. Id. In January 1989, Mr. Chapman requested a rating increase for his left ankle disability and reported issues in his right foot and knee. Id. In May 1989, he applied for disability benefits for a right foot and knee condition. Id. The VA denied both claims in June 1989. Id. at 3. Mr. Chapman appealed to the Board, and in July 1991, the Board granted an increase to 10% for the left an- kle disability but found no right leg disability had been demonstrated. Id. Mr. Chapman did not appeal. In September 1993, Mr. Chapman sought another rat- ing increase for his left ankle disability and a service con- nection for his right ankle. Id. The VA denied both claims in May 1995. Id. Mr. Chapman filed a Notice of

1 “Veterans Court Decision” refers to the Veterans Court decision found in Mr. Chapman’s Appendix, ECF 10- 2 at 5–15. The pages cited correspond to the page numbers of the decision itself. Case: 23-1834 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 03/15/2024

CHAPMAN v. MCDONOUGH 3

Disagreement for the May 1995 decision but only men- tioned the left ankle claim. Id. In August 2003, Mr. Chapman filed a claim for bilat- eral knee disorders and a right ankle condition. Veterans Court Decision at 3. The VA eventually awarded him a 20% disability rating for both the right knee and right an- kle conditions with an effective date of August 5, 2003. Id. at 4. In February 2014, Mr. Chapman filed a Notice of Dis- agreement challenging the effective date for both condi- tions. Id. In November 2016, after a series of denials, he appealed to the Board. Id. In December 2018, the Board issued a decision denying earlier effective dates for multi- ple conditions, including the right knee and right ankle conditions. 2018 Board Decision at 9–12. 2 The Board found that Mr. Chapman’s 1989 claim was adjudicated and became final after the Board’s July 1991 decision, and that his 1993 claim was denied in the VA’s May 1995 rating de- cision, which he did not appeal. Id. at 10–11. The Board thus denied Mr. Chapman’s claim for an earlier effective date for service connection. Id. at 11–12. Mr. Chapman appealed to the Veterans Court. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision. Vet- erans Court Decision at 8–9. The court concluded that the Board did not clearly err in finding that any prior right an- kle and knee claims had been finally adjudicated. Id. Spe- cifically, the court reasoned that the Board had a plausible basis to find that the July 1991 decision and the May 1995 decision both denied Mr. Chapman’s claims for a service connection for his right ankle and knee conditions. Id.

2 “2018 Board Decision” refers to the Board decision found in Mr. Chapman’s Appendix, ECF 10-2 at 16–32. The pages cited correspond to the page numbers of the de- cision itself. Case: 23-1834 Document: 33 Page: 4 Filed: 03/15/2024

Thus, the court affirmed the Board’s denial of an earlier effective date. Id. at 11. Mr. Chapman appeals. 3 DISCUSSION Our jurisdiction over decisions of the Veterans Court is limited. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we may review “the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the decision.” Except with respect to constitutional issues, 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.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). On appeal, Mr. Chapman argues the Board clearly erred regarding his claims for an earlier effective date for his right ankle and knee conditions. Informal Opening Br. at 2–7. 4 He argues the Board incorrectly interpreted the Board’s July 1991 decision as adjudicating his 1989 claim. Id. at 5 (citing Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990)). He also argues the Board failed to follow the benefit of the doubt rule when reviewing his form filed in January 1989. Id. at 6–11 (citing 38 U.S.C. § 3007(b) (1988) (benefit of the doubt doctrine), 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (reasonable doubt regu- lation), and 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (informal claim regulation)). Mr. Chapman further argues the Board failed to appreciate his Notice of Disagreement for the May 1995 rating deci- sion was an appeal of the entire decision. Id. at 14–15. He

3 The Veterans Court remanded Mr. Chapman’s claims for an earlier effective date for a left knee disability, bilateral pes planus, and a 20% rating for a left ankle dis- ability. Mr. Chapman does not appeal the remanded claims. 4 “Informal Opening Br.” refers to Mr. Chapman’s Informal Brief, ECF 18-1 at 4–17. Case: 23-1834 Document: 33 Page: 5 Filed: 03/15/2024

CHAPMAN v. MCDONOUGH 5

contends there was a question of doubt as to his right knee and right ankle conditions based on his filings in January 1989, September 1993, and August 1995 such that the Vet- erans Court should have reversed the Board’s decision. Id. at 15–17. Each of Mr. Chapman’s arguments either challenge factual determinations or the application of laws or regula- tions to the facts of his case. We lack jurisdiction over these arguments. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). For example, Mr. Chapman argues the Veterans Court’s decision does not mention the form he filed in January 1989, which identified issues with his bilateral knees and right ankle. Informal Opening Br. at 4. This argument challenges a factual find- ing in the record, which is not subject to our review. He also argues the Veterans Court erred because the Board’s 1991 decision does not mention his right knee or right an- kle conditions. Id. at 4–5. This argument challenges the Veterans Court’s application of the law to the facts of his case. Veterans Court Decision at 8–9. We do not have ju- risdiction to review application of law to facts. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Mr. Chapman argues we have jurisdiction over his ap- peal because he cited statutes and regulations in his brief. Informal Reply Br. at 2–4. Our jurisdiction is determined based on whether the case presents a question of law, in- cluding interpretations of constitutional and statutory pro- visions. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). Mr. Chapman cited statutes and regulations in his brief, but the Veterans Court did not interpret any laws or regulations in its decision. Instead, the Veterans Court reviewed the Board’s decision for clear error. Veterans Court Decision at 8–9 (citing Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53 in applying the “clearly erroneous” standard of review). This application of law to the facts of the case is not subject to our review. Mr. Chapman’s other arguments essentially ask us to review the record and Board’s decision on the Case: 23-1834 Document: 33 Page: 6 Filed: 03/15/2024

determination of his effective date for service connection, which are factual findings not subject to our review. Butler v. Shinseki, 603 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 5 Because Mr. Chapman disputes factual findings and the application of laws to the facts of his case, we lack jurisdiction over his appeal. CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Chapman’s remaining argu- ments and find them unpersuasive. Because his appeal does not raise issues within this Court’s limited jurisdic- tion, we dismiss. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.

5 Mr. Chapman’s mention of due process does not suffice to raise a constitutional issue within our jurisdic- tion. See Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[The appellant’s] characterization of [a] question as constitutional in nature does not confer upon us jurisdic- tion that we otherwise lack.”).