Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01588/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01588-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Treva R. Woods-Calhoun
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TREVA R. WOODS-CALHOUN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1588

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-3507, Chief Judge Bruce E. 

Kasold.

______________________ 

Decided: June 14, 2016

______________________ 

TREVA R. WOODS-CALHOUN, Covington, TN, pro se.

ZACHARY JOHN SULLIVAN, 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., CLAUDIA BURKE; Y. KEN LEE, CHRISTINA 

Case: 16-1588 Document: 17-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/14/2016
2 WOODS-CALHOUN v. MCDONALD

LYNN GREGG, Office of General Counsel, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, DYK, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Ms. Treva R. Woods-Calhoun appeals from a decision 

of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“the Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a 

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

denying benefits for migraine headaches, flat feet, and 

diabetes mellitus. Because we discern no legal error in 

the decision of the Veterans Court, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Ms. Woods-Calhoun served on active duty from December 1986 to April 1991. In October of 2008, a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office denied 

Ms. Woods-Calhoun’s claims for service connection for 

diabetes mellitus, flat feet, migraine headaches, and 

hearing loss. In April of 2011, on appeal, the Board 

remanded for further fact-finding regarding her claims. 

On remand, the VA examiner concluded that a service 

connection existed for her hearing loss but that the injury 

was minor and non-compensable. The VA examiner also 

concluded that Ms. Woods-Calhoun did not suffer from 

diabetes and that Ms. Woods-Calhoun’s flat feet and 

migraine headaches were not service connected. 

Ms. Woods-Calhoun sought review of the denial of her 

claims but did not seek review of the hearing loss determination. Based on the examiner’s findings, the Board 

denied service connection for the three conditions at issue 

on this appeal: diabetes mellitus, migraine headaches, 

and flat feet. The Board found that, relying on the examiner and looking at all of the medical records, “the preCase: 16-1588 Document: 17-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/14/2016
WOODS-CALHOUN v. MCDONALD 3

ponderance of the evidence shows that the Veteran does 

not have diabetes mellitus.” S. App’x 30–31. With respect 

to Ms. Woods-Calhoun’s claims for flat feet and migraine 

headaches, the Board found that “[t]here is no competent 

opinion in support of either of the claims.” Id. at 32. The 

Board found Ms. Woods-Calhoun’s claims that these 

problems surfaced during her service not credible, leaving 

the “only competent opinions of record” to be the examination reports finding no service connection. Id. 

Ms. Woods-Calhoun appealed to the Veterans Court.1 

The Veterans Court affirmed the decision of the Board, 

holding that “the Board’s finding that Ms. WoodsCalhoun’s allegations regarding in-service foot problems, 

headaches, and diabetes were inconsistent with the record 

evidence is plausible and not clearly erroneous.” Id. at 3. 

Ms. Woods-Calhoun now appeals to our court. 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).

 

1 In addition, when the case was pending in the 

Veterans Court the VA sought a remand in light of an 

error in the examiner’s report stating that the veteran 

received treatment for foot pain while in service. Ms. 

Woods-Calhoun did not, in fact, receive such treatment. 

The Veterans Court found that the examiner’s error was 

not prejudicial because “there is no basis to believe [the 

examiner] would render a different opinion if he understood that there was a lack of treatment for increased foot 

pain while in service, as opposed to his apparent understanding that Ms. Woods-Calhoun received such treatment.” S. App’x 12.

Case: 16-1588 Document: 17-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/14/2016
4 WOODS-CALHOUN v. MCDONALD

DISCUSSION

Throughout her brief, Ms. Woods-Calhoun challenges 

the Board’s weighing of evidence in denying her claims for 

service connection and the Board’s credibility determinations. These issues are outside our jurisdiction. See 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(c); King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345–

46 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]his court is precluded from reviewing challenges to factual determinations or challenges to 

an application of law to fact.”). Ms. Woods-Calhoun also 

purports to raise due process violations, asserting that 

“[her] Constitutional rights have been violated based on 

disabilities.” Cl. Br. at 13. But she offers nothing in 

support of this assertion and, as such, it too is outside our 

jurisdiction. 

Ms. Woods-Calhoun also contends that the Board and 

the Veterans Court did not properly afford her the “benefit of the doubt.” Section 5107(b) of title 38 requires that 

“[w]hen there is an approximate balance of positive and 

negative evidence regarding any issue material to the 

determination of a matter, the [VA] shall give the benefit 

of the doubt to the claimant.” 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). Thus, 

“when the positive and negative evidence relating to a 

veteran’s claim for benefits are in ‘approximate balance,’ 

thereby creating a ‘reasonable doubt’ as to the merits of 

his or her claim, the veteran must prevail.” Ortiz v. 

Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, 

“the ‘benefit of the doubt’ doctrine has no application 

where the Board determines that the preponderance of 

the evidence weighs against the veteran’s claim or when 

the evidence is not in equipoise.” Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 

F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 

marks omitted) (quoting and citing Ortiz, 274 F.3d at

1366). 

Here, the Board determined that Ms. WoodsCalhoun’s testimony was not credible and that the preCase: 16-1588 Document: 17-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/14/2016
WOODS-CALHOUN v. MCDONALD 5

ponderance of the evidence did not support a determination that Ms. Woods-Calhoun was entitled to serviceconnected disability for diabetes, flat feet, and headaches. 

This is not a situation where the evidence “in favor of and 

opposing the veteran’s claim [was] found to be almost 

exactly or nearly equal.” Ortiz, 274 F.3d at 1364. There 

was no error in not applying the “benefit of the doubt” 

doctrine. 

We note that Ms. Woods-Calhoun also raises arguments relating to her claim for hearing loss and an unrelated claim for entitlement to vocational rehabilitation 

and employment services. Those claims were not before 

the Board or the Veterans Court and are not properly 

before us now. Further, it appears from the record that 

those claims have already been resolved: Ms. WoodsCalhoun received a noncompensable service connection

determination in relation to the hearing loss from which 

she did not appeal, and Ms. Woods-Calhoun withdrew her 

appeal relating to vocational rehabilitation and employment services. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1588 Document: 17-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/14/2016