Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01488/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01488-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Robert L. Swafford
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERT L. SWAFFORD,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1488

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-3984, Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

______________________ 

Decided: November 8, 2016

______________________ 

ROBERT L. SWAFFORD, West Frankfort, IL, pro se.

ANTHONY F. SCHIAVETTI, 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; MARTIN JAMES 

SENDEK, Y. KEN LEE, Office of General Counsel, United 

States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Case: 16-1488 Document: 20-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2016
2 SWAFFORD v. MCDONALD

Before TARANTO, LINN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Robert L. Swafford appeals the final judgment of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

(“Veterans Court”). Because Mr. Swafford fails to appeal

a question within our jurisdiction, we dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Swafford is an Army veteran who served on active 

duty from February 1953 to December 1954, including 

service in Korea during the Korean War. In the 1990s, 

Mr. Swafford lost his hearing. In 2007, he filed a claim 

for service-connected benefits for tinnitus and bilateral 

hearing loss. A Veterans Administration examiner reviewed his medical history, performed an examination, 

and concluded that it was “less likely than not” that 

Mr. Swafford’s hearing loss and tinnitus were related to 

his in-service noise exposure. App. 23–24. The examiner 

noted that Mr. Swafford had shown normal hearing 

sensitivities when discharged from the Army and that in 

the years since his discharge he had a history of noise 

exposure working in housing construction.

Following the examination, the Regional Office (“RO”) 

denied Mr. Swafford’s claims. Mr. Swafford challenged 

that denial before the RO and later the V.A. Board of 

Appeals (“Board”), but both affirmed the original denial. 

He then appealed to the Veterans Court, which granted 

Mr. Swafford a remand. The court found that the Board 

had failed to support its decision with an adequate statement of reasons or bases and that it had relied on an 

inadequate medical examination to render its decision.

On remand, the Board requested an expert medical 

opinion from the Veterans Health Administration as to 

whether Mr. Swafford’s hearing loss likely began in, or 

was caused by, his time in service. A clinical audiologist 

Case: 16-1488 Document: 20-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2016
SWAFFORD v. MCDONALD 3

reviewed Mr. Swafford’s condition and concluded that his 

service did not likely cause his hearing loss, but rather its 

cause was likely “a combination of factors: his civilian 

occupational noise exposure, his recreational firearm use, 

genetics, and/or the aging process.” App. 59–60. Following this new opinion, Mr. Swafford submitted additional 

evidence and the Board remanded the case to the RO. 

On remand, the RO again denied Mr. Swafford’s 

claim. Mr. Swafford appealed, and the Board affirmed. 

Its eighteen-page opinion reflected a detailed consideration of the record evidence. The Board concluded that 

“the VA examiners provided sound reasoning in the 

analysis of the situation” and “[t]he VA medical specialists reviewed in detail the pertinent medical records, 

discussed the salient facts, and provided a complete 

rationale for all conclusions presented.” App. 94. 

Mr. Swafford appealed that judgment to the Veterans 

Court. Through counsel, he asserted that the Board 

relied on an inadequate medical report, failed to comply 

with the original remand order, and provided inadequate 

reasons and bases for its decision. The Veterans Court 

disagreed. It affirmed the Board’s findings that the 

medical report was adequate and that the report complied 

with the remand order’s requirement to consider lay 

evidence. The court further found that the Board’s decision provided sufficient reasons and bases for its opinion. 

Mr. Swafford timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. We may review legal questions such as those relating to the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). 

But we may not review factual determinations or application of law to fact, except to the extent an appeal presents 

a constitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2). 

Case: 16-1488 Document: 20-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/08/2016
4 SWAFFORD v. MCDONALD

We do not have jurisdiction to decide the issues that 

Mr. Swafford appeals. Mr. Swafford challenges the 

qualifications and competency of the audiologist who 

conducted the review of his medical history. But we have 

previously held that “the adequacy of a medical opinion is 

a matter beyond our appellate jurisdiction.” Prinkey v.

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

Mr. Swafford also challenges the merits of the Board’s 

benefits determination. He argues that, as a righthanded rifleman, he could have suffered left ear damage, 

so his left ear damage has a service connection. Appellant 

Br. 2. And he argues that the Board misstated his dates 

of service.1 Id. at 1. He thus requests that this court 

“declare all actions of the VA Board of Appeals taken after 

the first remand, null and void” and asks that we “award 

Swafford a just amount of compensation without delay.” 

Id. at 2. We cannot review these arguments, however, as 

they each attack the factual underpinnings of the Board’s 

denial of Mr. Swafford’s claim but do not implicate a 

question of law over which we have jurisdiction. See 

38 U.S.C. § 7292(c).

Besides challenging the merits of his benefits determination, Mr. Swafford also alleges that the Board “apparently conspired with two audiologist[s] not qualified as 

witnesses” and that “[f]alse witnesses of no knowledge of 

fact made discriminating statements against Veteran 

Robert Swafford.” Appellant Br. 1. Mr. Swafford alleges 

 

1 The Board noted that Mr. Swafford “had active 

service from February 1953 to September of 1954, to 

include service in Korea.” App. 80. While this statement 

by the Board did not play any role in its ultimate denial of 

Mr. Swafford’s claims, it appears to be in error. 

Mr. Swafford’s form DD 214 shows that he entered military service on February 13, 1953, and was released from 

service on December 23, 1954. App. 14. 

Case: 16-1488 Document: 20-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/08/2016
SWAFFORD v. MCDONALD 5

that these are constitutional issues within this court’s 

jurisdiction. The Government responds that these claims 

are not actually constitutional in nature, but rather

“amount[] merely to a disagreement with the contents of 

the examiner’s report.” Appellee Br. 10. We agree. To 

the extent that Mr. Swafford might call his claims constitutional, “his claim is constitutional in name only.” Helfer 

v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also 

Weaver v. United States, 98 F.3d 518, 520 (10th Cir. 1996) 

(“We examine the substance of these allegations, rather 

than the plaintiff’s labels, to determine their true nature.”) Mr. Swafford is arguing the factual merits of his 

claim, “not raising a separate constitutional contention.” 

Helfer, 174 F.3d at 1335. As such, we have no jurisdiction 

to reach his allegations. 

Because Mr. Swafford raises only factual disputes beyond our jurisdiction, we dismiss.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1488 Document: 20-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/08/2016