Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02331/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02331-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reginald D. Gainer
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

REGINALD D. GAINER,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-2331

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-2832, Judge Coral Wong 

Pietsch.

______________________ 

Decided: November 8, 2016

______________________ 

REGINALD D. GAINER, Panama City, FL, pro se.

ALBERT S. IAROSSI, 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; Y. KEN LEE, DEREK SCADDEN, Office of 

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC.

Case: 16-2331 Document: 17-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2016
2 GAINER v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before TARANTO, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Robert Gainer is a veteran of the U.S. armed forces. 

Before 2009, he was awarded some disability benefits by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. In 2009, he filed an 

informal claim for a determination, under 38 C.F.R. 

§ 4.16, that he was totally disabled based on individual 

unemployability. The relevant Regional Office of the 

Department denied that claim, and that denial was 

upheld by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and the Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 

In this appeal, Mr. Gainer argues that the Veterans 

Court misinterpreted 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) when it rejected 

his argument that the Board improperly considered 

evidence that had not been considered by the Regional 

Office. We disagree. The Veterans Court correctly recognized that § 7104(a) generally prohibits the Board from 

considering in the first instance evidence that was not 

considered by the Regional Office, and the Veterans Court 

reviewed the record in view of that interpretation. None 

of the Veterans Court’s actions suggest that it misinterpreted § 7104. We lack jurisdiction to review Mr. Gainer’s 

remaining arguments, which challenge the Veterans 

Court’s factual determinations. 

I 

Robert Gainer served on active duty in the U.S. Navy

from October 1985 to February 1986. In September 1986, 

the relevant Regional Office concluded that Mr. Gainer

had a service-connected chronic lumbosacral strain. In 

July 1990, the Regional Office rated Mr. Gainer 100% 

disabled for a defined period (May 8, 1990, to June 30, 

1990), based on his hospitalization and treatment, for 

Case: 16-2331 Document: 17-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2016
GAINER v. MCDONALD 3

lower back pain, at a Department medical center. In 

August 1990, after the temporary period ended, the 

Regional Office denied Mr. Gainer’s claim for an additional disability rating. Mr. Gainer did not appeal.

In 2004, Mr. Gainer filed a new claim based on his 

back problems. In 2006, following several medical examinations, the Board rated him 20% disabled, effective April 

13, 2004. In 2007, the Regional Office increased the 

disability rating to 40%, effective August 21, 2006. In 

2008, the Board affirmed. Mr. Gainer appealed, and in 

2009, the Veterans Court remanded the matter pursuant 

to a joint motion of the parties. 

While the matter was pending on remand, Mr. Gainer 

underwent several medical evaluations. In November 

2009, he was examined by Dr. Hardin, a Department 

physician. Dr. Hardin opined that Mr. Gainer was not 

able to be employed at the time because of “his current 

level of pain and disability.” J.A. 3. Based on that opinion, Mr. Gainer filed an informal claim for a rating of total 

disability based on individual unemployability. In 2010

and 2011, the Regional Office denied his claim, and in 

2011, the Board remanded the claim. 

In 2012, the Regional Office again denied Mr. Gainer’s 

claim, and the Board affirmed. In 2014, the Veterans 

Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the 

case, concluding that the Board had provided inadequate 

reasons or bases for its determinations. On remand, in 

May 2014, the Board found that Mr. Gainer should be 

afforded another medical examination to determine 

whether his service- and non-service-connected disabilities caused his unemployment. In June 2014, Mr. Gainer 

was again examined by Dr. Hardin, who opined that Mr. 

Gainer suffered from cervical and lumbar disc disease.

In August 2014, the Regional Office denied Mr. Gainer’s claim once more, and in January 2015, the Board 

remanded, finding that Mr. Gainer should be medically 

Case: 16-2331 Document: 17-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/08/2016
4 GAINER v. MCDONALD

examined another time. Mr. Gainer refused to be examined, stating that Dr. Hardin’s June 2014 examination

notes and his 1990 hospitalization records had not been 

considered in earlier decisions. He indicated that he 

wanted the Department to review his claim on the existing record. On remand, the Regional Office denied Mr.

Gainer’s claim yet again. 

In February 2015, the Board remanded so that Mr. 

Gainer could be examined, if possible, by a vocationalrehabilitation specialist. But Mr. Gainer refused to be 

examined, repeating his contention that his claim should 

be reviewed on the existing record. In May 2015, the 

Regional Office denied his claim, for the last time, and in 

July 2015, the Board affirmed.

In June 2016, the Veterans Court affirmed the 

Board’s decision. The court rejected Mr. Gainer’s argument that the Board failed to consider Dr. Hardin’s June 

2014 examination notes, citing the “presumption” that the 

Department, including the Board, reviews all evidence in 

the record and finding that Mr. Gainer had not adequately rebutted that presumption. J.A. 7. The court also 

rejected Mr. Gainer’s argument that the Board erred by 

considering evidence not considered by the Regional 

Office, both with respect to Dr. Hardin’s examination 

notes and in general. Finally, the court rejected Mr. 

Gainer’s argument that the Board erred in not applying 

the rating criteria for intervertebral disc syndrome. The 

court concluded that those criteria do not apply to a claim 

for total disability based on individual unemployability. 

Mr. Gainer appeals.

II

Our jurisdiction is limited. In this case, which involves no constitutional claim, we have jurisdiction to 

review the Veterans Court’s decision only to the extent 

that Mr. Gainer challenges a Veterans Court decision on a 

legal matter, not on a factual determination or the appliCase: 16-2331 Document: 17-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/08/2016
GAINER v. MCDONALD 5

cation of legal standards to the particular facts. 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(c), (d)(2); see, e.g., Wagner v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 

1343, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

Mr. Gainer argues that the Veterans Court misinterpreted 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) when it rejected his argument 

that the Board had erroneously considered evidence not 

considered by the Regional Office. Having reviewed the 

court’s decision, we see no error. Section § 7104(a) provides, in relevant part, that the Board’s decisions “shall be 

based on the entire record in the proceeding and upon 

consideration of all evidence and material of record and 

applicable provisions of law and regulation.” 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7104(a). In accordance with that provision, the Veterans Court held that “the Board generally may not consider evidence in the first instance without a waiver from the 

claimant.” J.A. 8. Although the court noted that Mr. 

Gainer did not “identify the specific evidence that he 

contend[ed] was improperly considered by the Board,” it

proceeded to review the record in view of that interpretation. Id. None of the court’s actions, including its analysis of Dr. Hardin’s June 2014 medical notes, suggest that 

it interpreted § 7104(a) differently. We therefore reject 

Mr. Gainer’s claim of legal error by the Veterans Court.

Separately, Mr. Gainer argues that the Veterans 

Court erred because it did not review an administrative 

grievance regarding the Board’s May 2014 remand decision. To the extent that Mr. Gainer alleges that the court

misinterpreted § 7104(a) in this regard, we see no legal 

error in the court’s interpretation of that statute. Mr. 

Gainer has not identified any other alleged error of law. 

We therefore must reject this argument as well.

Finally, Mr. Gainer argues that “the version of the 

facts accepted by the Board is not supported by substantial evidence and the version of the facts accepted by the 

court is clearly erroneous.” Appellant’s Br. 1. That 

argument requires us to review the Veteran’s Court’s 

Case: 16-2331 Document: 17-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/08/2016
6 GAINER v. MCDONALD

factual determinations, which we lack jurisdiction to do. 

38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). We therefore dismiss Mr. Gainer’s 

remaining arguments for lack of jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims with respect to its 

interpretation of § 7104. We dismiss Mr. Gainer’s appeal 

in all other respects.

No costs.

AFFIRMED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART

Case: 16-2331 Document: 17-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/08/2016