Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07018/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Robin L. Swearingen
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBIN L. SWEARINGEN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7018

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-2491, Judge Coral Wong 

Pietsch.

______________________ 

Decided: May 12, 2015

______________________ 

ROBIN L. SWEARINGEN, Covington, IN, pro se. 

SHARI A. ROSE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

JOYCE R. BRANDA, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, SCOTT D. AUSTIN; 

MARTIN JAMES SENDEK, Y. KEN LEE, Office of General 

Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Washington, DC.

Case: 15-7018 Document: 18-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/12/2015
2 SWEARINGEN v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before REYNA, SCHALL, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Robin Swearingen contests the denial of veterans’ 

benefits for Parkinson’s disease based on exposure to 

ionizing radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. 

Because Mr. Swearingen has not raised any issues within 

our limited jurisdiction, we must dismiss his appeal.

I 

Mr. Swearingen served on active duty in the U.S. Air 

Force from 1983 to 1988. In November 2009, 

Mr. Swearingen sought veterans’ benefits for Parkinson’s 

disease as a result of radiation exposure while he was 

stationed in Germany. Specifically, he alleged exposure 

to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster from April 24, 1986 to 

October 31, 1986. He also stated that he had been treated 

for Parkinson’s disease as of December 2001 at a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center.

In January 2010, after receiving Mr. Swearingen’s 

medical records and a letter from him stating that he had 

no other information to submit in support of his claim, a

Veterans Affairs regional office denied his claim. Following the submission of a Notice of Disagreement and 

studies purporting to show a relationship between radiation and Parkinson’s disease, the regional office issued a 

decision continuing to deny his claim. 

In May 2013, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals issued a 

decision affirming the denial of Mr. Swearingen’s claim. 

The Board found that the VA complied with its duty to 

assist Mr. Swearingen by obtaining all pertinent records. 

The Board also found that the VA was not required to 

provide a medical examination because there was no 

competent scientific or medical evidence supporting a 

connection between Parkinson’s disease and radiation 

Case: 15-7018 Document: 18-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/12/2015
SWEARINGEN v. MCDONALD 3

exposure or any indication that Mr. Swearingen’s disability was associated with his service. The Board concluded

that the evidence did not establish service connection 

based on a theory of exposure to ionizing radiation, a 

statutory presumption, or a direct theory.

Mr. Swearingen then appealed to the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims, which affirmed the Board’s 

decision. The Veterans Court also found that the VA 

satisfied its duty to assist Mr. Swearingen and that the 

Board provided adequate reasons and bases for its findings and conclusions. Mr. Swearingen appeals.

II

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. 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.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (d)(1). But 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,” except to the extent an appeal presents a 

constitutional issue. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

The regulations provide that certain “radiogenic diseases” may be service-connected if they become manifest 

in a veteran exposed to ionizing radiation. 38 C.F.R. 

§§ 3.309(d), 3.311. Parkinson’s disease is not listed as a 

“radiogenic disease” in the regulations. Nevertheless, the 

VA was required to consider Mr. Swearingen’s claim if he

identified “competent scientific or medical evidence that 

the claimed condition is a radiogenic disease.” 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.311(b)(4). 

The Board reviewed all of the evidence 

Mr. Swearingen submitted, including several articles,

treatises, and blogs, but found that none of the evidence 

Case: 15-7018 Document: 18-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/12/2015
4 SWEARINGEN v. MCDONALD

provided competent scientific studies or findings associating Parkinson’s disease with exposure to ionizing radiation. On appeal, Mr. Swearingen requests that we review 

the evidence and rule in his favor. See, e.g., Appellant’s 

Informal Br. Resp. No. 6. Because the only issue here is 

Mr. Swearingen’s disagreement with factual findings and 

application of law to fact, we must dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

No costs.

Case: 15-7018 Document: 18-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/12/2015