Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01124/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01124-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Gilberto Torrez
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GILBERTO TORREZ,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1124

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-1528, Judge Robert N. Davis.

______________________ 

Decided: February 9, 2016

______________________ 

 GILBERTO TORREZ, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

 JESSICA R. TOPLIN, 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; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, DEREK SCADDEN, 

Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Case: 16-1124 Document: 12-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/09/2016
2 TORREZ v. MCDONALD

Before REYNA, BRYSON, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Gilberto Torrez seeks review of the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(Veterans Court) affirming the decision of the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals (Board). For the reasons stated below, 

we dismiss Mr. Torrez’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction and, 

to the extent that his appeal makes out a constitutional 

claim over which we would have jurisdiction, we reject 

that claim. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Torrez served on active duty in the U.S. Army 

from August 1970 to November 1991. He twice sought 

benefits related to service-connected injuries. First, he 

claimed a right elbow injury, left elbow pain, a left knee 

injury, right knee pain, chronic sinusitis, sinus bradycardia, bilateral hearing loss, hypertension, elevated cholesterol, lumbosacral pain, upper respiratory infections, 

prostatitis, and pes planus. The Department of Veterans 

Affairs regional office denied those claims in December 

1992. Because Mr. Torrez did not file a notice of disagreement or submit new and material evidence within the 

one-year period to do so, this decision became final. See 

38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(1); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.302(a). 

Second, Mr. Torrez sought benefits related to depression 

or a panic disorder, a right little-finger fracture, and knee 

injuries. The regional office likewise denied these claims 

in April 2005. Mr. Torrez again did not file a notice of 

disagreement or submit new and material evidence before 

the one-year deadline, and this denial thus became final.

In June 2008, Mr. Torrez filed a claim collaterally attacking the 1992 and 2005 denials as based on clear and 

unmistakable error. See 38 U.S.C. § 5109A. After the 

regional office denied this new claim, Mr. Torrez filed a 

Case: 16-1124 Document: 12-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/09/2016
TORREZ v. MCDONALD 3

notice of disagreement appealing this denial to the Board. 

This notice of disagreement additionally identified a 

number of new medical conditions that the regional office 

never had the opportunity to consider, either in its 1992 

or 2005 determinations or in the 2008 collateral attack. 

The Board consulted with Mr. Torrez and removed these 

new conditions from Mr. Torrez’ appeal so that the regional office could consider them in the first instance. 

The regional office has since issued a determination on 

the claims for benefits relating to those conditions. The 

Board then moved on to the medical conditions for which 

Mr. Torrez had already sought relief from the regional 

office. It remanded one to the regional office for a new 

determination on clear and unmistakable error and

upheld the regional office’s determination on the others. 

Mr. Torrez appealed to the Veterans Court the portion of 

the Board’s decision upholding the regional office. The 

Veterans Court affirmed the Board, and Mr. Torrez 

appealed that decision to us. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited. We have jurisdiction “to review and 

decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or 

regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent 

presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(c). Except when a veteran brings a constitutional 

challenge, we lack jurisdiction to review any “challenge to 

a factual determination” or any “challenge to a law or 

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

§ 7292(d)(2).

Mr. Torrez asserts that his appeal falls under our jurisdiction because it (1) addresses the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation and (2) raises a

constitutional challenge. 

Case: 16-1124 Document: 12-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/09/2016
4 TORREZ v. MCDONALD

We first consider whether Mr. Torrez’ appeal addresses any determination by the Veterans Court on the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation. Mr. Torrez 

asserts that his appeal involves questions under 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.303(a) and (b). This regulation describes principles 

guiding the determination whether a condition is service 

connected. Mr. Torrez does not challenge the validity or 

the Veterans Court’s interpretation of this regulation, but 

instead the Veterans Court’s application of the regulation 

to the facts of his case. We lack jurisdiction over such a 

challenge.

Second, we consider Mr. Torrez’ contention that his 

appeal involves a constitutional challenge. This contention centers on the new medical conditions that he added 

in filing his appeal and that the Board referred to the 

regional office for consideration in the first instance. Mr. 

Torrez takes issue with the Board’s decision, which in his 

view is incomplete for not resolving these new claims. Mr. 

Torrez frames this issue as a problem with the Veterans 

Court’s jurisdiction, which it is not. We might, however,

interpret Mr. Torrez’ objection to the Board’s determination to raise a constitutional concern. To the extent that

we have jurisdiction over this challenge, we find the 

Board’s actions to have appropriately protected Mr. 

Torrez’ rights. “Claims for veterans’ benefits are initially 

developed and adjudicated by a VA Regional Office.” 

Sprinkle v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1180, 1183–84 (Fed. Cir. 

2013) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(1), (d)(1)). “Decisions of 

the Regional Office are then reviewed on appeal by the 

Board.” Id. at 1184 (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a)). “To 

ensure that claimants receive the benefit of this twotiered review within the agency, all evidence relevant to a 

claim generally must be considered by the Regional Office 

in the first instance.” Id. (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a)). By 

referring these claims to the regional office, the proper 

forum to consider them in the first instance, the Board 

ensured Mr. Torrez access to an adjudication through the 

Case: 16-1124 Document: 12-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/09/2016
TORREZ v. MCDONALD 5

proper channels. Mr. Torrez does not dispute that the 

regional office adjudicated these claims. We therefore see 

no violation of any constitutional principle in the record 

below. To the extent that Mr. Torrez has made out a 

constitutional claim over which we have jurisdiction, it is 

unfounded.

CONCLUSION

We dismiss Mr. Torrez’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

and, to the extent that he raises a constitutional claim 

over which we have jurisdiction, we reject this claim.

AFFIRMED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART

COSTS

No Costs.

Case: 16-1124 Document: 12-2 Page: 5 Filed: 02/09/2016