Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02436/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02436-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Armando Arroyo-Jusino
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ARMANDO ARROYO-JUSINO,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-2436

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-1036, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

______________________ 

Decided: November 9, 2016

______________________ 

ARMANDO ARROYO-JUSINO, Springfield, MA, pro se.

ADAM E. LYONS, 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, DEREK SCADDEN, Office of General 

Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Case: 16-2436 Document: 15-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2016
2 ARROYO-JUSINO v. MCDONALD

Before PROST, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER, and REYNA,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Armando Arroyo-Jusino seeks review of the final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the denial by the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) of his request for a 

determination of a service connection for post-traumatic 

stress disorder (“PTSD”). Armando Arroyo-Jusino v. 

Robert A. McDonald, No. 15-1036 (Vet. App. May 31, 

2016), reconsideration denied (July 22, 2016). Because we 

conclude that Arroyo-Jusino’s challenges are outside the 

scope of our jurisdiction, we dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

Arroyo-Jusino served on active duty in the U.S. Army 

from June 1964 to May 1966. His Veterans Administration (“VA”) service medical records do not indicate any 

complaints or treatment of a psychiatric condition. In 

February 1965, Arroyo-Jusino requested reassignment 

and in December 1965, he requested a hardship discharge. The stated bases for these requests were the 

illness of Arroyo-Jusino’s mother and his need to be 

available to take care of her. 

The earliest post-service record for Arroyo-Jusino is a 

letter dated April 1968 from Dr. LoBianco, in which he 

stated that Arroyo-Jusino was treated for physical injuries stemming from an April 1, 1968 car accident. The 

records of this treatment, from 1973-1979, do not reflect 

treatment for any psychiatric symptoms. A later letter 

from Dr. LoBianco in November 1986 stated that he 

treated Arroyo-Jusino from 1966 to 1969 for physical 

problems, but likewise did not reference psychiatric 

complaints or treatment. In 1981, Arroyo-Jusino underwent a VA psychiatric examination and was diagnosed 

with dysthymic disorder (persistent depressive disorder) 

Case: 16-2436 Document: 15-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2016
ARROYO-JUSINO v. MCDONALD 3

and alcohol dependence. A psychiatric examination report 

from the VA dated September 1987 contained a diagnosis 

of schizophrenia. However, as the Board determined, this 

document relates to a different person with the same last 

name of Arroyo-Jusino. The person diagnosed with schizophrenia had a different first name, social security number, and dates of service. Further, there is another report 

of psychiatric examination by the same doctor on the 

same date concerning Armando Arroyo-Jusino, diagnosing

him with dysthymic disorder and alcohol dependence. 

There are a number of documents in Arroyo-Jusino’s file 

dated after September 1987 that reference him having a 

history of schizophrenia, but, there is no document other 

than the September 1987 one that contains an actual

diagnosis of schizophrenia. 

In March 1999, Dr. Cabaero, a VA psychiatrist, diagnosed Arroyo-Jusino with major depression triggered by 

PTSD, delayed type, which means that there is a period of 

time between the traumatic event and the onset of symptoms. Dr. Cabaero attributed Arroyo-Jusino’s trauma to 

his witnessing the death of his brother in 1960 and injuring a pedestrian while driving a car in 1962. The diagnosis did not link this condition to his military service. 

Arroyo-Jusino claims that he received psychiatric treatment prior to his service and that his pre-existing condition worsened during his service. However, there are no 

treatment records that confirm this. 

In July 2012, Dr. D.C.E. from the VA reviewed Arroyo-Jusino’s claim files and confirmed that the 1987 

letter containing a diagnosis of schizophrenia was regarding a different person with the same last name as ArroyoJusino. He concluded that a diagnosis of schizophrenia in 

post-1987 documents was erroneously attributed to Arroyo-Jusino because of this letter. He thus concluded that 

dysthymic disorder, alcohol dependence, and PTSD were 

supported in the record, but that a diagnosis of schizophrenia was not.

Case: 16-2436 Document: 15-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2016
4 ARROYO-JUSINO v. MCDONALD

Arroyo-Jusino first requested a disability rating based 

on service-connected PTSD in September 1997, and then 

again in October 2009, at the VA Regional Office (“RO”) in 

Boston, Massachusetts. The RO denied his request, 

finding that Arroyo-Jusino did not have service-connected 

PTSD. 

Arroyo-Jusino appealed these decisions to the Board 

in 2012, arguing that the VA failed in its duty to obtain 

evidence that would be favorable to his case. The evidence 

he referred to are letters that he claims were attached to 

his requests for reassignment and discharge in 1965 that 

were not included in his service records. The only medical 

professional who submitted a letter in support of the 

requests is Dr. Anthony D. LoBianco, D.O., a “doctor of 

osteopathic medicine with no apparent background in 

treating mental health” issues. Arroyo-Jusino v. McDonald, No. 15-1036, 2016 WL 3055638, at *1 (Vet. App. May 

31, 2016). The Board found that no such letters ever 

existed and that there was “no basis to believe” that Dr. 

LoBianco “would have offered diagnoses or opinions 

beyond [his] area of expertise.” Jusino v. McDonald, No. 

12-3657, 2014 WL 4249972, at *2 (Vet. App. Aug. 29, 

2014). Thus, in October 2012, the Board denied ArroyoJusino’s claim of service connection for PTSD. 

Arroyo-Jusino then appealed the Board’s decision to 

the Veterans Court. In August 2014, the Veterans Court 

remanded the case, finding that “it [was] not clear why 

the Board believes that the letters did not exist, given the 

1965 statement that the letters were attached.” Jusino, 

2014 WL 4249972, at *2. The Veterans Court requested 

that the Board provide “further explanation as to how VA 

satisfied its duty to assist Mr. Jusino with regard to the 

letters noted as being attached to the requests for reassignment and for hardship discharge.” Id. at *3. 

In 2015, on remand, the Board denied Arroyo-Jusino’s 

claim again. It further considered whether the VA satisfied its duty to assist under the Veterans Claims AssisCase: 16-2436 Document: 15-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/09/2016
ARROYO-JUSINO v. MCDONALD 5

tance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 

(“VCAA”). It determined that “there is no reasonable 

possibility that the letters attached to the petitions for 

reassignment or a hardship discharge . . . would help 

support the claim, and thus there is no duty to attempt to 

obtain them.” Joint Appendix 41. The Board reasoned 

that because Arroyo-Jusino’s requests were based on his 

mother’s illness, any attached letters would “necessarily 

pertain to [her] condition” or “to the assertion that [Arroyo-Jusino] was the only one available to care for her.” 

Id. at 42. Additionally, the Board found that the missing 

letters would not be helpful to Arroyo-Jusino’s in-service 

PTSD claim because the other documents in his file 

referencing later examinations of Arroyo-Jusino by Dr. 

LoBianco and Dr. Florio did not make any mention of 

current or previous psychiatric condition or treatment. 

On May 31, 2016, the Veterans Court affirmed the 

Board’s decision. In a subsequent order, on July 22, 2016, 

the Veterans Court denied Arroyo-Jusino’s motion for 

reconsideration on the basis that Arroyo-Jusino “fail[ed] 

to present any material argument or evidence that the 

Court overlooked or misunderstood.” Joint Appendix 11. 

Arroyo-Jusino timely appealed to this court. 

Arroyo-Jusino asks that this Court review the Veterans Court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. 

Specifically, he requests that this Court locate the missing letters from his previous requests and then consider 

all evidence on the record. First, Arroyo-Jusino asserts 

that the Board erred in not locating and considering the 

missing letters. Second, he contends that the Board 

disregarded several favorable medical opinions in his file. 

Next, Arroyo-Jusino criticizes the Board for failing to 

provide an adequate statement of its reasons and bases 

for its decision. Finally, Arroyo-Jusino says that the 

Board erred in not considering “new and material evidence,” showing that he was treated while on active duty. 

Case: 16-2436 Document: 15-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/09/2016
6 ARROYO-JUSINO v. MCDONALD

The Secretary argues that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(d)(2), which states that the Federal Circuit may 

not review factual determinations of the Veterans Court, 

and which is what it contends Arroyo-Jusino is asking for. 

Alternatively, the Secretary contends that if we were to 

hold that we do have jurisdiction to assess Arroyo-Jusino’s 

claims that the Board ignored some evidence, this Court

should still affirm the decision of the Veterans Court 

because it properly reviewed the evidence of record and 

the Board’s weighing of that evidence. 

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review in an appeal from the Veterans Court is limited. We may review the validity of a 

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

a statute or regulation that was relied upon by the Veterans Court in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a)

(2002). Except with respect to constitutional issues, this 

Court “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.” Id. at

§ 7292(d)(2).

Arroyo-Jusino argues here that the Veterans Court 

“ignored all evidence in his claim file” and disregarded a 

“favorable medical opinion.” Pl.’s Informal Br. 1. He 

requests that this Court “locate [his] missing records for 

treatment while on active duty” and then “reconsider all 

evidence.” Id. at 2, 4. Arroyo-Jusino’s arguments challenge only the Veterans Court’s application of law to the 

facts of his case, which are matters outside of this Court’s 

jurisdiction. See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 

(Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The evaluation and weighing of evidence ... are factual determinations committed to the 

discretion of the factfinder. We lack jurisdiction to review 

those determinations.”); DeLaRosa v. Peake, 515 F.3d 

1319, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our jurisdiction precludes us 

from reviewing factual findings or even the application of 

Case: 16-2436 Document: 15-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/09/2016
ARROYO-JUSINO v. MCDONALD 7

law to facts.”). The Veterans Court’s decision neither 

involved any questions regarding the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation, nor did the court decide a 

constitutional issue. Rather, the Veterans Court applied 

the governing law to the factual findings made by the 

Board. This Court lacks jurisdiction to review that application. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 

(Fed. Cir. 2009).

This court likewise does not possess jurisdiction to review Arroyo-Jusino’s claim that the VA did not fulfill its 

duty to assist under VCAA. The VA has a duty to “make 

reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim.” 38 

U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(1) (2012). But, the VA is not required to 

assist a claimant in obtaining identified records “if no 

reasonable possibility exists that such assistance would 

aid in substantiating the claim.” 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(2); 

see also Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (“It is not the case that the government must obtain 

records in every case in order to rule out their relevance.”). Whether the VA has fulfilled its duty to assist 

under the VCAA is a question of fact. See Garrison v. 

Nicholson, 494 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The 

Board in this case made a factual determination that the 

VA fulfilled its duty to assist. Thus, this Court has no 

jurisdiction to review it.

We have considered the additional arguments presented in Arroyo-Jusino’s informal appeal briefs but do 

not find them persuasive. For these reasons, the appeal is 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No Costs.

Case: 16-2436 Document: 15-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/09/2016