Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01868/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01868-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Douglas D. Dietrich
Appellant
Denis McDonough
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

DOUGLAS D. DIETRICH,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2024-1868

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 23-1155, Judge Grant Jaquith.

______________________

Decided: December 3, 2024

______________________

DOUGLAS D. DIETRICH, Pasco, WA, pro se.

 BRITTNEY M. WELCH, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also 

represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES 

GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.

______________________

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 24-1868 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 12/03/2024
2 DIETRICH v. MCDONOUGH

PER CURIAM.

Douglas D. Dietrich, a veteran, appeals from a decision 

of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

(“Veterans Court”). SAppx1–14.1 He seeks an earlier 

effective date for service connection for obstructive sleep 

apnea, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, which are 

secondary to his service-connected right knee disability. 

For the following reasons, we dismiss-in-part and affirmin-part.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Dietrich served his country in the U.S. Marine 

Corps from February 1979 to March 1990 and from June 

1990 to September 1992. After he left service, the

Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) regional office 

(“RO”) granted him service connection for bilateral knee 

disability in September 1993 with an effective date of 

September 29, 1992. Initially, the rating was 

noncompensable, but in October 1995, the VA increased the 

rating to 10% for each knee.

In December 2003, Mr. Dietrich requested an increase 

in his right knee disability rating, alleging increased 

instability. An October 2004 examination revealed that 

Mr. Dietrich walked normally and had no difficulty rising 

from a chair, but he also reported he had gained weight 

since January 2003 and was taking 600 milligrams of 

Motrin three times a day to manage his pain. In a January 

2005 rating decision, the RO maintained the 10% rating for 

each knee and noted that there was no objective medical 

evidence of limited motion or instability of the right knee 

warranting a higher rating. Mr. Dietrich filed a notice of 

disagreement (“NOD”) contesting this rating decision.

1 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix 

attached to Appellee’s Informal Brief, ECF No. 5.

Case: 24-1868 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 12/03/2024
DIETRICH v. MCDONOUGH 3

In May 2006, Mr. Dietrich was diagnosed with diabetes

mellitus. Around this time, he also reported a “recent 

significant increase in knee pain with new symptom[s] of 

popping and catching.” Dietrich v. McDonough, No. 23-

1155, 2024 WL 861148, at *2 (Vet. App. Feb. 29, 2024)

(alteration in original). He was diagnosed with severe 

obstructive sleep apnea (“OSA”) in September 2006. In the 

same month, an orthopedic doctor evaluated Mr. Dietrich 

and found that his “activities of daily living, including 

bending, lifting, [and] recreation are limited because of the 

ongoing issues of the right knee,” and noted “increased pain 

with motion and repetitive use.” Id. In December 2006,

Mr. Dietrich withdrew his claim for an increased right knee 

rating, among other claims, but attempted to reinstate it in 

February 2007. Id. The VA subsequently notified 

Mr. Dietrich that, under the regulations in effect at the 

time, the withdrawal of his claims was effective upon 

receipt and the attempted reinstatement was invalid. Id.

at *8.

In April 2008, Mr. Dietrich filed the claims at issue in

this appeal. He sought service connection for his OSA, 

diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, all as secondary to his 

service-connected right knee disability. Mr. Dietrich

enclosed a statement from a physician linking his weight

gain to his right knee condition and opining that the 

additional weight had contributed to the OSA, diabetes 

mellitus, and hypertension. After the Board initially

denied the claims, it granted them in March 2016 because 

all three conditions were “aggravated by [a] serviceconnected disability.” Id. at *3 (alteration in original). In 

a July 2016 rating decision, the RO assigned a 50% rating 

for his OSA, a 20% rating for his diabetes mellitus, and a 

noncompensable rating for his hypertension, all with an 

April 1, 2008, effective date.

In October 2016, Mr. Dietrich filed a NOD contesting 

the effective date for all three claims. He argued that,

because all were secondary to his knee claim, they should 

Case: 24-1868 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 12/03/2024
4 DIETRICH v. MCDONOUGH

have the same effective date as his knee claim: September 

1992.

The RO denied an earlier effective date for the three 

claims and Mr. Dietrich appealed to the Board. In a 

decision dated October 15, 2021, the Board denied an 

earlier effective date because April 1, 2008, was the date 

the claims were first received by the VA and the claims

were received more than one year after Mr. Dietrich’s

separation from service.2 The Board also addressed 

Mr. Dietrich’s argument about secondary service 

connection and explained that the “requirement that a

secondary disability be considered a part of an original 

disability does not establish that the original disability and 

the secondary disability must receive identical effective 

dates.” SAppx24. The Board determined that there was 

no basis for an earlier effective date because the “record 

does not show any communication that could be

interpreted as a claim for benefits for sleep apnea, diabetes 

mellitus, or hypertension prior to the receipt of the April 1, 

2008 claim.” SAppx23. Mr. Dietrich appealed the Board’s 

decision to the Veterans Court.

2 Generally, the effective date for a service-connected 

disability is the date of receipt of the claim by the VA or the 

date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. 

§ 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. If a claim is received within 

one year after separation from service, the effective date

will be the day following separation from service or the date 

entitlement arose. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a)–(b)(1); 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.400(b)(2). Section 3.400 also governs secondary 

service-connected disabilities and the normal rules for 

effective dates are applicable. Ellington v. Peake, 541 F.3d 

1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he effective date for 

secondary conditions is governed by section 3.400, which 

establishes the effective date as the ‘date of receipt of claim, 

or [the] date entitlement arose, whichever is later.’”).

Case: 24-1868 Document: 12 Page: 4 Filed: 12/03/2024
DIETRICH v. MCDONOUGH 5

Before the Veterans Court, Mr. Dietrich changed his

argument to assert that during the development of his 

December 2003 claim for increased right knee disability,

the VA received copies of his treatment records that 

reasonably raised claims for secondary service connection 

for OSA, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. The 

Veterans Court interpreted this argument to assert that 

the Board provided an inadequate statement of reasons or 

bases by failing to address (1) “whether the claims for 

secondary service connection for OSA, diabetes mellitus, 

and hypertension were ‘reasonably raised’ by the veteran’s 

VA treatment records during the adjudication of his right 

knee disability rating”; and, if so, (2) whether, under 

38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b), these records “were ‘new and material 

evidence’ that would allow the secondary service 

connection claims to take on the same” effective date of “the

increased rating claim for the primary disability.” Dietrich, 

2024 WL 861148, at *4.

Although the Veterans Court determined Mr. Dietrich 

did not clearly argue to the Board that his right knee 

disability claim reasonably raised secondary service 

connection for OSA, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, 

the Veterans Court reviewed the Board’s determination of 

the proper effective date and whether the record 

reasonably raised entitlement to his secondary serviceconnected conditions prior to the April 2008 date of the 

claims. The Veterans Court considered the evidence

recited above and noted Mr. Dietrich failed “to point to any 

specific evidence that links his OSA, diabetes mellitus, or 

hypertension to his service-connected right knee disability”

prior to his current effective date of April 1, 2008. Id. at *7. 

It observed that such evidence was not in the record until 

April 2008, when Mr. Dietrich submitted evidence that his 

knee condition had contributed to weight gain and 

subsequently his OSA, diabetes mellitus, and 

hypertension. Id. The Veterans Court held that “[b]ecause 

the treatment records that [Mr. Dietrich] relies on do not 

Case: 24-1868 Document: 12 Page: 5 Filed: 12/03/2024
6 DIETRICH v. MCDONOUGH

suggest that these claims were reasonably raised by the 

record, the Court cannot fault the Board for failing to 

explicitly discuss this theory of entitlement.” Id.

Mr. Dietrich also argued that he had additional right 

knee claims, other than his withdrawn right knee 

instability claim, pending when he was diagnosed with 

OSA, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension that reasonably

raised secondary service connection. Id. The Veterans 

Court considered four filings that Mr. Dietrich pointed to 

as evidence he had other right knee claims pending: (1) a 

denied claim that Mr. Dietrich did not appeal that he may 

have withdrawn in December 2006; (2) a letter that did not 

clearly relate to a knee claim, other than the withdrawn 

claim, or identify the related claim date such that the 

Veterans Court could determine if the claim was actually 

pending when the relevant conditions were reasonably 

raised by the record; (3) a submission related to a surgery

that “took place after the secondary disabilities had 

allegedly been raised by the record”; and (4) the letter 

seeking to reinstate his withdrawn appeal. Id. at *8. 

Mr. Dietrich bore the burden of demonstrating error in the 

Board’s decision and the Veterans Court determined 

Mr. Dietrich “has not convincingly shown that there were 

other right knee claims pending . . . and the Court cannot 

conclude that it was clear error for the Board not to discuss 

this issue.” Id. (citing Hilkert v. West, 12 Vet. App. 145, 151 

(Vet. App. 1999) (en banc), aff’d, 232 F.3d 908 (Fed. Cir. 

2000) (per curiam)).

Even assuming that Mr. Dietrich had, in fact, 

identified evidence linking his OSA, diabetes mellitus, or 

hypertension to his service-connected disability prior to his 

current effective date of April 1, 2008, the Veterans Court 

explained that our court has already rejected his legal 

theory––that a secondary service-connected claim is “new 

and material evidence within the meaning of 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.156(b)” and takes on the same effective date as the 

primary claim. Id. at *9 (brackets omitted) (citing 

Case: 24-1868 Document: 12 Page: 6 Filed: 12/03/2024
DIETRICH v. MCDONOUGH 7

Manzanares v. Shulkin, 863 F.3d 1374, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 

2017)). Because “his legal argument for an earlier effective 

date has been rejected by controlling caselaw from the 

Federal Circuit,” the Veterans Court held the Board did not 

err when it denied an earlier effective date for 

Mr. Dietrich’s claims. Id. at *10.

Mr. Dietrich timely appealed to this court.

DISCUSSION

On appeal Mr. Dietrich asserts seven main sources of 

error for review by this court: (1) the Veterans Court erred 

in its review of the application of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.310 and 

3.156(b) to his case; (2) the Veterans Court erred in its

determination that Manzanares is controlling law in this 

matter; (3) the Veterans Court’s erred in its determination 

that his secondary service connection claims were not 

reasonably raised by the record prior to the receipt of his 

claim for secondary service connection; (4) the Veterans 

Court erred in determining that the Board provided 

adequate reasons and bases for its decision; (5) he was not 

given the benefit of the doubt; (6) the Veterans Court failed 

to decide the issue of his rating for hypertension; and 

(7) the Veterans Court erred by failing to consider the effect 

of the lower hypertension threshold for individuals with 

diabetes.

Many of Mr. Dietrich’s arguments, including his 

argument the Veterans Court erred in its review of the 

application of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.310 and 3.156(b) to the facts of 

his case, fall outside of our jurisdiction because they 

challenge factual determinations or applications of law to 

fact. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); Butler v. Shinseki, 603 F.3d 

922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“We agree that the factual 

findings of when a disability was claimed or service 

connection established are not subject to our review.”). 

This court has very limited jurisdiction when reviewing 

decisions of the Veterans Court. We have jurisdiction only 

“with respect to the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] 

Case: 24-1868 Document: 12 Page: 7 Filed: 12/03/2024
8 DIETRICH v. MCDONOUGH

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.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a).

“Except to the extent that an appeal . . . presents a 

constitutional issue, [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.”3 Id.

at § 7292(d)(2). Because we are not permitted to review 

fact findings or application of a law or regulation to the 

facts, we lack jurisdiction to review Mr. Dietrich’s 

arguments numbered 1, 3, 4, and 5 above.

We do, however, have jurisdiction to review the 

following issues.

Turning first to Mr. Dietrich’s argument that 

Manzanares is not controlling law in this matter (his 

second alleged source of error), we possess jurisdiction to 

consider “[w]hether the Veterans Court applied a correct 

legal standard,” and we review that question de novo. 

Conyers v. McDonough, 91 F.4th 1167, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 

2024). In Manzanares, we rejected the argument that a 

3 Mr. Dietrich’s informal brief states: “Due process. 

The [RO] failed to follow the correct regulations and laws 

in assigning a correct effective date.” Appellant’s Br. 2. 

There is no other mention of due process, and we thus do 

not perceive this language to raise a genuine constitutional 

issue. The informal brief simply does not specify how any 

due process rights were violated. Id. Nor did the Veterans 

Court address any constitutional issues. Labeling 

arguments as constitutional does not automatically confer 

jurisdiction on this court. Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 

1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To the extent that he has simply put 

a ‘due process’ label on his contention that he should have 

prevailed on his EAJA claim, his claim is constitutional in 

name only.”).

Case: 24-1868 Document: 12 Page: 8 Filed: 12/03/2024
DIETRICH v. MCDONOUGH 9

veteran’s “secondary service connection . . . was ‘part’ of her 

pending [primary claim] by virtue of § 3.310(a). . . [and]

that § 3.156(b) required that the VA treat the ‘new and 

material evidence’—i.e., her [secondary service connection] 

claim—‘as having been filed on’” the date of her primary 

claim. 863 F.3d at 1376.

Here, Mr. Dietrich contends Manzanares is not 

controlling because that case involved a “non-aggravated 

secondary service-connected claim.” Appellant’s Br. at 6–

7. Both Ms. Manzanares’ and Mr. Dietrich’s claims involve 

a “disability which is proximately due to or the result of a 

service-connected disease or injury” rather than the 

aggravation of non-service-connected disabilities. 

38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a); SAppx23 (applying secondary-serviceconnection pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a) to 

Mr. Dietrich); but see id. § 3.310(b) (“Any increase in 

severity of a nonservice-connected disease or injury that is 

proximately due to or the result of a service-connected 

disease or injury, and not due to the natural progress of the 

nonservice-connected disease, will be service connected.”). 

We are not convinced that the alleged differences between 

types of secondary service connection claims form a basis 

for distinguishing Manzanares. Our court has made clear 

that “the effective date for secondary conditions is governed 

by section 3.400” and that requiring primary and 

secondary claims to have the same effective date “would be 

illogical, given that secondary conditions may not arise 

until years after the onset of the original condition.” 

Ellington v. Peake, 541 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

We hold that the Veterans Court applied the correct legal 

standard.

As to Mr. Dietrich’s contention that the Veterans Court 

failed to address his rating for hypertension or the lower 

hypertension threshold for individuals with diabetes (his 

sixth and seventh alleged sources of error), we note that 

Mr. Dietrich did not challenge his rating for hypertension. 

Mr. Dietrich only challenged the effective date of his 

Case: 24-1868 Document: 12 Page: 9 Filed: 12/03/2024
10 DIETRICH v. MCDONOUGH

service connection before the Board. SAppx20–26. 

Because we cannot consider arguments raised for the first 

time on appeal, we decline to do so here. See, e.g., Johns 

Hopkins Univ. v. CellPro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1362 

(Fed. Cir. 1998) (“As a general rule, an appellate court will 

not hear on appeal issues that were not clearly raised in 

the proceedings below.”)

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Dietrich’s remaining 

arguments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, for 

the foregoing reasons, we dismiss-in-part and affirm-inpart.

DISMISSED-IN-PART AND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 24-1868 Document: 12 Page: 10 Filed: 12/03/2024