Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01720/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01720-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip A. Brown
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PHILLIP A. BROWN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1720

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-2441, Judge Coral Wong 

Pietsch.

______________________ 

Decided: July 12, 2016

______________________ 

PHILLIP A. BROWN, Little Rock, AR, pro se.

AMELIA LISTER-SOBOTKIN, 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., MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR; DEREK SCADDEN,

BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United 

States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Case: 16-1720 Document: 17-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/12/2016
2 BROWN v. MCDONALD

 

______________________ 

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

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Phillip A. Brown seeks review of the November 5, 2015 decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the July 18, 2014 

decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). 

Brown v. McDonald, No. 14-2441, 2015 U.S. App. Vet. 

Claims LEXIS 1514 (Vet. App. Nov. 5, 2015). For the 

reasons below, we dismiss Mr. Brown’s appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Brown served on active duty from March 1987 to 

July 1990. Joint Appendix (“JA”) 2. While in service, Mr. 

Brown injured his back after slipping and falling on a wet 

floor while handling crates. JA 20-21. Mr. Brown was 

also injured in an automobile accident during his service. 

JA 2. At that time, Mr. Brown underwent treatment for 

neck pain as a result of cervical strain, but he did not 

allege low back injury and was not diagnosed with any 

low back condition. JA 2-3, 20-21. 

After discharge from active duty, Mr. Brown submitted a claim for a cervical spine disorder. In May 1996, 

Mr. Brown was awarded service connection for cervical 

strain with headaches. JA 3. In October 1997, Mr. Brown 

filed a claim for service connection for low back pain. The 

Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Regional Office 

(“RO”) denied Mr. Brown’s low back pain claim in March 

1998, after determining that his back pain was an acute 

event not due to prior injuries. JA 22. 

In April 2001, Mr. Brown sustained a back injury at 

work and received treatment. JA 23. X-rays at the time 

showed “reversal of lumbar lordosis potentially related to 

Case: 16-1720 Document: 17-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/12/2016
BROWN v. MCDONALD 3

muscle spasm or positioning, but without fracture, dislocation, disc rupture, or joint disease.” Id. 

In February 2006, Mr. Brown filed a request to reopen 

the low back claim he originally submitted in October 

1997. Subsequent VA medical examinations concluded 

that Mr. Brown’s low back condition was likely not related 

to service. JA 4-5, 24-26. After remands from the Board 

for additional medical evaluation, in August 2011, the RO

finally denied Mr. Brown’s claim. JA 5.

The Board, and then the Veterans Court, proceeded to 

adjudicate Mr. Brown’s reopened claim for low back 

injury. After an initial remand for reconsideration of 

certain evidence, on July 18, 2015 the Board found that 

Mr. Brown had a low back disorder, but held that this 

disorder was not connected to Mr. Brown’s service injuries. JA 6. In its decision, the Board considered medical 

reports submitted by Mr. Brown, but upon weighing the 

evidence, the Board held that “[t]he weight of the competent and credible evidence demonstrates that [Mr. 

Brown’s] low back disorder . . . first manifested many 

years after service and is not related to his active service.” 

JA 32. On November 5, 2015, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s July 18, 2015 decision. 

Mr. Brown now appeals the November 5, 2015 judgment of the Veterans Court.

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.” Wanless v. 

Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(c)). “Absent a constitutional issue, however, we lack the jurisdiction to ‘review (A) a challenge to a 

Case: 16-1720 Document: 17-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/12/2016
4 BROWN v. MCDONALD

factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or 

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

Id. (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)).

Here, Mr. Brown contests the denial of his claim for 

service connected low back injury. Appellant Br. at 1-2. 

Specifically, Mr. Brown argues that the Veterans Court 

erred in failing to credit his physician’s report opining

that Mr. Brown’s low back injury was more likely than 

not due to injuries sustained while he was in service. Id.

at 3. Mr. Brown further contends that the Veterans Court 

erred in failing to give him the benefit of the doubt in 

rendering its decision denying his claim. Id. Finally, Mr. 

Brown argues that he should have been given “an unbiased medical opinion to satisfy the conflicting medical 

opinions” in the record. Id.

In response, the government notes that this court 

does not have jurisdiction to review the weight given to 

conflicting evidence. Appellee Br. at 10-11. The government further contends that we do not have jurisdiction to 

review the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine to Mr. Brown’s case. Id. at 13. Finally, the Government argues that we do not have jurisdiction to review 

the question of whether the Board should have ordered 

another independent medical examination regarding Mr. 

Brown’s claim. Id.

We agree with the government that we do not have 

jurisdiction over this appeal. “The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences 

from it are factual determinations committed to the 

discretion of the fact-finder. We lack jurisdiction to 

review these determinations.” Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 

F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Moreover, the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine to Mr. Brown’s 

case is a question regarding the applicability of law to the 

facts of a specific case, which we do not have jurisdiction 

to review. See Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. 

Case: 16-1720 Document: 17-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/12/2016
BROWN v. MCDONALD 5

Cir. 2001) (“[I]f the Board is persuaded that the preponderant evidence weighs either for or against the veteran’s 

claim, it necessarily has determined that the evidence is 

not ‘nearly equal’ or ‘too close to call,’ and the benefit of 

the doubt rule therefore has no application.”); Hinton v. 

Shinseki, No. 2014-7002, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2154, at 

*9 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2014) (“[T]o find that the Board 

erroneously failed to give Mr. Hinton the benefit of the 

doubt would require us to re-weigh the evidence,” which 

“we lack jurisdiction to address”). Finally, “the sufficiency 

of a medical opinion is a matter beyond our jurisdictional 

reach, because the underlying question is one of fact.” 

Prinkey v. Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

Mr. Brown only challenges the weighing of evidence 

in his case, which is an issue of fact, and the applicability 

of the benefit of the doubt doctrine to his case, which is an 

issue of the application of law to the facts of his case. 

Such questions are outside the scope of our review. See 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(c), (d)(2); Bastien, 599 F.3d at 1306. Therefore, we must dismiss Mr. Brown’s appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Brown appeals the Veterans Court’s weighing of 

the evidence in his case, and the Veterans Court’s application of law to the specific facts of his case. We lack 

jurisdiction to decide such issues. See Wanless, 618 F.3d 

at 1336. Accordingly, we dismiss Mr. Brown’s appeal.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1720 Document: 17-2 Page: 5 Filed: 07/12/2016