Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07052/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07052-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin L. Hobson
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

KEVIN L. HOBSON,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2015-7052

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-3412, Chief Judge Bruce E. 

Kasold.

______________________

Decided: July 28, 2015

______________________

KEVIN L. HOBSON, Scottsdale, AZ, pro se.

HEIDI L. OSTERHOUT, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD; Y. KEN LEE, CHRISTINA L. GREGG, 

Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Case: 15-7052 Document: 20-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/28/2015
2 HOBSON v. MCDONALD

______________________

Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Kevin L. Hobson appeals the decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans 

Court), affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’

Appeals denying benefits for his right-knee arthritis/degenerative joint disease (DJD) on the ground that it 

is not related to his military service. The Veterans Court 

also dismissed Mr. Hobson’s appeal concerning benefits 

for post-traumatic stress disorder and whole body DJD,

on the ground that these claims had been referred by the 

Board to the regional office for additional development.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Hobson expresses concern that the Veterans 

Court declined to review issues that the Board had referred to the regional office. The Veterans Court has 

responsibility and authority to review “decisions of the 

Board.” 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a). “A ‘decision’ of the Board, 

for purposes of the Veterans Court’s jurisdiction under 

section 7252, is the decision with respect to the benefits

sought by the veteran: those benefits are either granted . . . or they are denied.” Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 

1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

The Veterans Court correctly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the claims that had been referred by 

the Board to the regional office for further development. 

See Kirkpatrick v. Nicholson, 417 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed., 

Cir. 2005) (“We agree with the Secretary that the Board’s 

remand in this case was not a ‘decision’ within the meaning of Maggitt and section 7104(d)(2).”). The referral to 

the regional office was not a “decision” of the Board. 38 

U.S.C. § 7104(d)(2) provides that “[e]ach decision of the 

Case: 15-7052 Document: 20-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/28/2015
HOBSON v. MCDONALD 3

Board shall include . . . (2) an order granting appropriate 

relief or denying relief.” See Kirkpatrick, 417 F.3d at 1364 

(“Our definition of ‘decision’ in section 7252 is in line with 

the definition of a Board decision in 38 U.S.C. § 7104, the 

Board’s jurisdictional statute.”).

Mr. Hobson claimed entitlement to service connection 

for right-knee DJD as a result of exposure to ionizing 

radiation. The Board reviewed the avenues by which Mr. 

Hobson could establish service connection. 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.309(d) provides that a radiation related disease is 

presumptively service connected if manifested in a “radiation-exposed veteran,” defined as a veteran who participated in a “radiation-risk activity.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.311

provides presumptive service connection of certain “radiogenic” diseases listed under subsection 3.311(b)(2), if the 

Veteran Affairs Under-Secretary for Benefits determines 

that the diseases are related to ionizing radiation exposure while in service or if they are otherwise medically 

linked to ionizing radiation exposure.

In addition, diseases not listed under subsection 

3.311(b)(2) may be considered radiogenic “if the claimant 

has cited or submitted competent scientific or medical 

evidence that the claimed condition is a radiogenic disease.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(b)(4). These regulations state

special procedures to develop the veteran’s claim, including obtaining a radiation dose estimate. 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.311(a). The Board found that Mr. Hobson’s right-knee 

DJD is not a listed radiogenic disease under subsection 

3.311(b)(2) and that “the evidence does not reflect that 

[Mr. Hobson] suffers from a radiogenic disease.” Bd. Vet. 

App. Op. at 10 (Nov. 6, 2013).

The Board also considered entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307(a)(3), and 

3.309(a). Section 3.303 provides for service connection for 

a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in, 

or aggravated by, active military service. “For the showCase: 15-7052 Document: 20-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/28/2015
4 HOBSON v. MCDONALD

ing of chronic disease in service there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease 

entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity 

at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word ‘Chronic.’” Id.

§ 3.303(b). Under §§ 3.307(a)(3) and 3.309(a), chronic 

diseases such as arthritis are presumptively serviceconnected if manifested to a compensable degree within 

one year of the veteran’s discharge from service.

We conclude that no error of law or regulation appears in this action. Given the statutory limits on our 

jurisdiction, we cannot review the Board’s application of 

law to the facts. We take note that Mr. Hobson’s allegations of discrimination and bias are accompanied by no 

support.

The decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims is

AFFIRMED.

No costs.

Case: 15-7052 Document: 20-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/28/2015