Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07090/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07090-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arthur L. Ghee
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ARTHUR L. GHEE,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7090

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-2352, Judge Mary J. Schoelen.

______________________ 

Decided: January 12, 2016

______________________ 

ARTHUR L. GHEE, Lithonia, GA, pro se.

ELIZABETH ANNE SPECK, 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., SCOTT D. AUSTIN; Y. KEN LEE, CHRISTINA 

LYNN GREGG, Office of General Counsel, United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-7090 Document: 24-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/12/2016
2 GHEE v. MCDONALD

Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Arthur Ghee appeals from the final decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the 

“Veterans Court”) denying his claims for serviceconnected disability compensation. Because Mr. Ghee’s 

arguments challenge only the Veterans Court’s findings of 

fact and application of law to fact, we dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Ghee served honorably in the United States Navy 

from December 1979 through December 1983. Mr. Ghee

claims that during his service, his work exposed him to

various fuels, chemicals, and paints. Mr. Ghee also 

claims exposure to nuclear radiation. His service medical 

records reflect that he was treated on multiple occasions 

for respiratory complaints and a cough. 

On July 23, 2001, Mr. Ghee filed service-connected 

disability claims for, among other things, “sleep apnea,” 

“breathing problems,” and “shortness of breath,” which 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”) construed 

to include reactive airway dysfunction syndrome (“RADS”) 

and restrictive lung disease. In 2010, the VA granted Mr. 

Ghee service-connected disability ratings of 30% and 60% 

for RADS effective July 23, 2001, and October 12, 2005, 

respectively. Mr. Ghee’s claims for restrictive lung disease and sleep apnea are the subject of this appeal. 

In March 2003, the Board of Veterans Appeals (the 

“Board”) denied entitlement to disability compensation for 

sleep apnea, but remanded to the VA regional office Mr. 

Ghee’s respiratory disorder claim. 

In November 2005, the VA examined Mr. Ghee for 

respiratory problems, which resulted in a diagnosis of 

Case: 15-7090 Document: 24-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/12/2016
GHEE v. MCDONALD 3

restrictive lung disease and sleep apnea. The Board later 

remanded the VA’s determination after finding the initial 

examination “internally contradictory.” J.A. 5. 

Mr. Ghee received another respiratory examination in 

December 2008. The VA examiner diagnosed restrictive 

lung disease and chronic obstructive sleep apnea, but 

concluded that both diagnoses were not likely related to 

Mr. Ghee’s military service. J.A. 19. 

Mr. Ghee obtained a private medical toxicology opinion in August 2009. J.A. 6. That opinion concluded that 

Mr. Ghee’s in-service exposure to fuel and other chemicals 

was one of several factors that contributed to his current 

respiratory problems. Mr. Ghee then submitted the 

opinion to the Board for consideration. 

The Board referred Mr. Ghee’s case to a VA respiratory medical expert to evaluate whether Mr. Ghee had a 

service-connected respiratory disorder. In March 2010, 

the VA respiratory care specialist found that Mr. Ghee 

had, among other things, severe obstructive sleep apnea, 

morbid obesity, and moderate restrictive lung disease. 

J.A. 6. Although the specialist did not physically examine

Mr. Ghee, he concluded that those conditions were not 

related to service. On March 16, 2010, the VA sent Mr. 

Ghee a letter containing a copy of the medical opinion and 

provided him with 60 days “to review the medical opinion 

and send [the Board] any additional evidence or argument.” S.J.A. 13. On May 13, 2010, Mr. Ghee provided a 

written response. S.J.A. 5–12.

On March 3, 2011, the Board denied disability compensation for sleep apnea and restrictive lung disease. 

J.A. 58. The Board considered Mr. Ghee’s objections to 

the specialist’s 2010 opinion, but determined that the 

specialist’s factual statements—rather than Mr. Ghee’s

statements—were supported by the record. J.A. 71–72. 

The Board also acknowledged inconsistencies in Mr. 

Ghee’s statements. J.A. 72–74. Based on the record

Case: 15-7090 Document: 24-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/12/2016
4 GHEE v. MCDONALD

before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Ghee’s sleep 

apnea and restrictive lung disease first manifested after 

service and were not service-connected. J.A. 7, 75. On 

December 22, 2014, the Veterans Court affirmed the 

Board’s decision.

Mr. Ghee appeals to this Court, seeking to invoke our 

jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292. 

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review in an appeal from a Veterans 

Court decision is limited. We may review a Veterans 

Court decision on a rule of law or the interpretation of any 

statute or regulation that was relied on by the Veterans 

Court in making the decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Except as to constitutional issues, we cannot review challenges to a factual determination or challenges to a law or 

regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case. Id.

§ 7292(d)(2). 

We lack jurisdiction to address Mr. Ghee’s appeal. In 

essence, he asks us to reweigh the evidence, which we 

cannot do. Thompson v. McDonald, 580 F. App’x 901, 906 

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“We lack jurisdiction to reweigh the 

evidence considered by the Board.”). 

Whether Mr. Ghee is entitled to an independent medical assessment or whether his evidence from a private 

medical practitioner should be given deference is an issue

of fact and necessarily questions the Veterans Court’s 

application of law to those facts. See generally 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.328 (explaining as a matter of discretion the factual 

circumstances when “an advisory medical opinion may be 

obtained”). To the extent the VA reviewed several medical opinions when discerning the claims at issue, its

determination about which opinions are more credible 

and reliable is beyond the scope of our review. The VA 

conducted physical examinations of Mr. Ghee and then

internally referred his case to a VA specialist upon receivCase: 15-7090 Document: 24-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/12/2016
GHEE v. MCDONALD 5

ing additional information from Mr. Ghee. Although Mr. 

Ghee contends that he was supposed to receive notice of 

any independent examination referrals, the statutes and 

regulations that Mr. Ghee cites apply to non-VA medical 

professional referrals only. See 38 U.S.C. § 7109(a), (c); 

Sprinkle v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1180, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

(rejecting a similar challenge because the Board “remanded the case for a medical examination administered by the 

Regional Office”). 

CONCLUSION

Because Mr. Ghee challenges only the factual basis of 

the determination made by the VA, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-7090 Document: 24-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/12/2016