Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07074/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07074-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Thomas L. Stark
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

THOMAS L. STARK,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7074

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-3549, Judge Coral Wong 

Pietsch.

______________________ 

Decided: October 4, 2016

______________________ 

 SEAN A. RAVIN, Coral Gables, FL, for claimantappellant.

 COURTNEY D. ENLOW, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by SCOTT D. AUSTIN, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, 

Case: 15-7074 Document: 48-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/04/2016
2 STARK v. MCDONALD

Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, BRYSON, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Stark appeals the February 4, 2015 decision 

of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”) affirming the August 21, 2013 decision of the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). Stark v. McDonald, 

No. 13-3549, 2015 WL 461601 (Vet. App. Feb. 4, 2015). 

For the reasons below, we dismiss Mr. Stark’s appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Stark served in the United States Army from 

March 1966 to April 1986. In July 1979, Mr. Stark was 

involved in an automobile accident and sought treatment 

for injuries to his lower back and left appendages. At that

time, Mr. Stark did not allege cervical spine pain, nor was 

he diagnosed with any cervical spine condition. 

In June 1986, Mr. Stark applied for entitlement to 

disability benefits for various pains and injuries, including back pain. Again, Mr. Stark did not report a cervical 

spine injury. In February 1987, Mr. Stark was granted 

entitlement to service connection for chronic low back 

strain. At a September 1988 VA compensation and pension (“C&P”) examination, an examiner noted that Mr. 

Stark reported mild pain in the back of his neck that had 

started in 1979. At a January 1999 VA C&P examination, 

an examiner noted that Mr. Stark reported cervical spine 

pain that started “a few years ago,” and based on this 

report, the examiner diagnosed Mr. Stark with cervical 

spine disease with possible mild cord compression. 

In July 2002, Mr. Stark submitted an informal claim 

for benefits for a cervical spine disability, which he 

Case: 15-7074 Document: 48-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/04/2016
STARK v. MCDONALD 3

claimed as secondary to his service-connected chronic low 

back strain. In October 2002, the Regional Office denied 

entitlement to service connection for Mr. Stark’s new 

claim. Mr. Stark appealed, and in September 2007, the 

Board affirmed the Regional Office’s decision. Mr. Stark 

filed a medical opinion in August 2008 that connected the 

in-service automobile accident to his cervical spine pain. 

The parties then filed a joint motion for remand, which 

was granted.

In support of his claim on remand, Mr. Stark submitted two additional medical opinions. Despite these opinions, in July 2011, a C&P examiner concluded that Mr. 

Stark’s injuries were not connected to his service. The 

Board again denied Mr. Stark’s entitlement to service 

connection for a cervical spine disability in August 2013, 

finding Mr. Stark’s reports of long-term neck problems 

not credible because of conflicting prior statements and 

his failure to report neck pain after the 1979 automobile 

accident. Relying on the 2011 C&P examiner’s report, the 

Board found that (1) the cervical spine symptoms did not 

begin until 1998, (2) Mr. Stark failed to include cervical 

spine disability claims in his 1986 application, (3) the VA 

examinations prior to February 1998 did not uncover any 

neck pain, and (4) Mr. Stark specifically denied neck pain 

during private treatment in 1997. 

Mr. Stark appealed the decision of the Board to the 

Veterans Court. On February 4, 2015, the Veterans 

Court found that the Board erred in its credibility finding

by not explaining why Mr. Stark’s failure to include neck 

pain in his 1986 application for benefits diminished his 

credibility. Stark, 2015 WL 461601, at *3–4. The Veterans Court found the Board’s error to be non-prejudicial as 

a whole, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b), and therefore 

affirmed the Board’s decision. Id. at *4–5. Mr. Stark 

appeals this decision. 

Case: 15-7074 Document: 48-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/04/2016
4 STARK v. MCDONALD

DISCUSSION

Our ability to review a decision of the Veterans Court 

is limited. 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). We have exclusive jurisdiction “to 

review and decide any challenge to the validity of any 

statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof 

brought under [38 U.S.C. § 7292], and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented 

and necessary to a decision.” Id. § 7292(c). Except to the 

extent that an appeal presents a constitutional issue, 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.” Id. § 7292(d)(2). 

We agree with the Government that we do not have 

jurisdiction over this appeal under § 7292(d)(2). An 

interpretation of a statute or regulation occurs when its 

meaning is elaborated upon by the court. Graves v. 

Principi, 294 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing 

Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 

(en banc) (superseded on other grounds by statute, Pub. L.

No. 107–330, § 402(a), 116 Stat. 2820, 2832 (2002))). 

Despite Mr. Stark’s assertions to the contrary, the Veterans Court did not interpret § 7261(b)(2) in rendering its 

decision here by elaborating on the meaning of the statute. The Veterans Court simply applied § 7261(b)(2) to 

conduct its prejudicial error analysis, and concluded that 

the Board had not committed prejudicial error. J.A. 13–

14. We further note that the parties did not argue for 

differing interpretations of § 7261(b)(2) in their briefing 

below. 

Mr. Stark appeals the Veterans Court’s application of 

law to the facts of this case, which is a matter over which 

Case: 15-7074 Document: 48-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/04/2016
STARK v. MCDONALD 5

we lack jurisdiction. We accordingly dismiss Mr. Stark’s 

appeal.

DISMISSED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Case: 15-7074 Document: 48-2 Page: 5 Filed: 10/04/2016