Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02207/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02207-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cecil L. Carpenter
Appellant
Robert Wilkie
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CECIL L. CARPENTER,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2019-2207

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 18-2404, Judge Amanda L. Meredith.

______________________

Decided: April 22, 2020

______________________

PAUL MICHAEL SCHOENHARD, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Washington, DC, for claimant-appellant. Also 

represented by IAN BARNETT BROOKS. 

 DAVID PEHLKE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

JOSEPH H. HUNT, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, ROBERT 

EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.; MARTIE ADELMAN, Y. KEN LEE, 

Case: 19-2207 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 04/22/2020
2 CARPENTER v. WILKIE

Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Cecil Carpenter appeals from a decision of the Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) denying service connection. See Carpenter v. Wilkie, No. 18-

2404, 2019 WL 2305860 (Vet. App. May 31, 2019) (“Decision”). Because Carpenter raises only factual issues over 

which we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

Carpenter served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 

1984 to 1987. Carpenter’s service records reveal that he 

experienced numerous injuries during his service, including complaints of lower back pain, hip pain after being 

struck by a vehicle, a knee injury suffered during a softball 

game, and a back injury after falling while waxing a floor. 

His separation examination report documents no knee or 

spine conditions, symptoms, or other significant injuries. 

In the months after his separation, Carpenter complained 

of neck and knee pain, but VA examinations found his 

head, neck, and knees to be normal.

In 2007, Carpenter filed a claim for benefits for a right 

knee condition, which was denied. In 2010, Carpenter filed 

a second claim for benefits for cervical spondylosis and 

right knee patella chondromalacia. Carpenter also filed a 

report from a private orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Allen, concluding that there is a “probable association” between Carpenter’s present conditions and the injuries suffered during 

his service. The Regional Office denied Carpenter’s claim, 

and he appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the 

Board”).

Case: 19-2207 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 04/22/2020
CARPENTER v. WILKIE 3

At a Board hearing, Carpenter testified that he told his 

examiner about his neck, back, and knee injuries during 

his separation examination, but the examiner failed to note 

them. He also testified that he separated his patella during the softball game in which he injured his knee and had 

not suffered any post-service knee injuries. Additionally, 

Carpenter’s wife testified that he had experienced knee, 

back, and neck pain during the entire 26 years for which 

she had known him.

The Board reopened Carpenter’s claim and ordered a 

VA examination. The VA examiner determined that Carpenter’s present conditions were not related to his in-service injuries, concluding that it is most likely that 

Carpenter’s conditions, identified many years after his separation, were the result of physical stress since his separation. The Board denied Carpenter’s claims, and he 

appealed to the Veterans Court.

The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision. The 

court determined that the Board did not err in crediting the 

results of the VA examination over the statements of 

Dr. Allen. Decision at *4. Specifically, the court held that 

the Board did not err in determining that Dr. Allen’s opinions lack probative value because his opinions were based 

on Carpenter’s statements of continuity of neck and knee 

pain, which the Board determined were inconsistent with 

other evidence of record. Id. Carpenter appealed.

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited. We may review a decision of the Veterans 

Court with respect to a rule of law or interpretation of a 

statute or regulation relied on by the Veterans Court in its 

decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). However, except with respect to constitutional issues, we may not review challenges to factual determinations or challenges to the 

application of a law or regulation to the facts of a case. 

§ 7292(d)(2).

Case: 19-2207 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 04/22/2020
4 CARPENTER v. WILKIE

On appeal, Carpenter argues that the Veterans Court 

erred in denying service connection for his knee and spine 

conditions. Specifically, Carpenter argues that the court 

failed to give him the benefit of the doubt as required by 

38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). Carpenter also argues that the court 

failed to credit the opinion of Dr. Allen and consequently 

imposed an improperly heightened burden on Carpenter to

demonstrate continuity between his in-service injuries and 

his present conditions.

The government responds that we lack jurisdiction to 

review the Veterans Court’s decision because Carpenter 

raises only factual issues on appeal—specifically, the 

Board’s credibility determinations and its weighing of the 

evidence in denying service connection.

We agree with the government that Carpenter raises 

only factual challenges and we therefore lack jurisdiction 

over this appeal. Although Carpenter argues that the Veterans Court committed legal error by failing to give Carpenter the benefit of the doubt, § 5107(b) applies only when 

the evidence is approximately in equipoise. See Ortiz v. 

Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, 

the Board did not determine that the evidence was approximately equal but rather that “the preponderance of evidence is against the claim.” J.A. 30. Accordingly, the 

benefit-of-the-doubt rule was not engaged, and Carpenter’s 

argument amounts to a request for this court to reweigh 

the evidence, which we lack jurisdiction to do.

Carpenter similarly attempts to cast the Board’s credibility determinations as a legal error, arguing that the 

Board improperly discounted Dr. Allen’s report solely because it was based on statements made by Carpenter. 

However, as the Veterans Court observed, the Board did 

not discount Dr. Allen’s opinion solely because it was based 

on Carpenter’s statements as Carpenter contends, but rather because Carpenter’s statements themselves were contradicted by other evidence of record. Decision at *4. It is 

Case: 19-2207 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 04/22/2020
CARPENTER v. WILKIE 5

the appropriate role of the Board, as factfinder, to determine the credibility of evidence. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, the Board 

performed this role in determining that Carpenter’s statements were contradicted by other evidence and discounting 

Dr. Allen’s opinion accordingly, and its “credibility determination is a question of fact beyond this court’s jurisdiction.” Gardin v. Shinseki, 613 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 

2010).

CONCLUSION

We have considered Carpenter’s remaining arguments 

but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

Case: 19-2207 Document: 31 Page: 5 Filed: 04/22/2020