Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07037/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07037-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Jesus Rodriguez
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JESUS RODRIGUEZ,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7037

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-2214, Judge Coral Wong 

Pietsch.

______________________ 

Decided: May 18, 2015

______________________ 

JESUS RODRIGUEZ, Fort Worth, TX, pro se. 

AGATHA KOPROWSKI, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., SCOTT 

D. AUSTIN; Y. KEN LEE, CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Office of 

Case: 15-7037 Document: 12-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/18/2015
2 RODRIGUEZ v. MCDONALD

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Jesus Rodriguez appeals the decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals (“Board”) denying Mr. Rodriguez entitlement to 

benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 (2012) for a cerebrovascular accident and its residuals. Because the issues raised

by Mr. Rodriguez on appeal require the application of law 

to fact, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

From September 1974 to September 1976, Mr. Rodriguez served on active duty in the United States Army.

During service he injured his back and was later granted 

service connection, rated at fifty percent, for residuals of a

fracture of the lumbar spine, effective October 1991. 

On May 1, 2000, Mr. Rodriguez was treated at the 

Fort Worth, Texas, Veterans Administration (“VA”) 

Medical Center for “a heavy feeling in his left hand, 

dragging of his left leg, and changes in his voice.” Resp’t’s 

App. 3. The VA physician ordered a computed tomography (“CT”) scan and opined that Mr. Rodriguez may have

had a cerebrovascular accident (“CVA”). Mr. Rodriguez 

was sent home but returned the next day complaining of 

“progressive weakness for the last 3 to 4 days.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The treating 

physician noted there was “significant left-side facial 

weakness” but found the CT scan “unremarkable,” id., 

and ordered a magnetic resonance imaging scan (“MRI”) 

for the next day. The MRI indicated Mr. Rodriguez had

Case: 15-7037 Document: 12-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/18/2015
RODRIGUEZ v. MCDONALD 3

experienced a CVA, and recommended he go to the emergency room in Dallas. 

Mr. Rodriguez declined to go to the emergency room 

in Dallas and instead went to the Huguley Memorial 

Medical Center in Fort Worth, where he complained he 

had lost strength in his legs and explaining he had sought 

treatment in the VA medical center. Mr. Rodriguez was 

assessed with “a right temporoparietal infarction.” Id. at

4.

Mr. Rodriguez filed a claim for benefits under 38 

U.S.C. § 1151(a),1 alleging the VA caused his CVA and its 

residuals by not providing him with prompt diagnosis and 

care when he went to the VA in May 2000. 

1 Section 1151 of Title 38 provides for “[b]enefits for 

persons disabled by treatment or vocational rehabilitation.” In relevant part, under the statute, a disability is a 

“qualifying additional disability” when 

(1) the disability or death was caused by hospital 

care, medical or surgical treatment, or examination furnished the veteran under any law administered by the Secretary, either by a Department 

employee or in a Department facility as defined in 

section 1701(3)(A) of this title, and the proximate 

cause of the disability or death was

(A) carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, 

error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on 

the part of the Department in furnishing the hospital care, medical or surgical treatment, or examination; or

(B) an event not reasonably foreseeable.

38 U.S.C. § 1151. 

 

Case: 15-7037 Document: 12-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/18/2015
4 RODRIGUEZ v. MCDONALD

In October 2001, the VA Regional Office (“VARO”) denied Mr. Rodriguez’s claim, finding “his condition was not 

the result of a failure by VA to timely provide medical 

care.” Id. Mr. Rodriguez submitted a Notice of Disagreement and a letter from his private physician stating 

that he had treated Mr. Rodriguez in early May 2000 

after having several episodes of dysarthia and progressive 

weakness in his left side. Id. The private physician also 

opined that, had he seen Mr. Rodriguez earlier, he would 

have admitted him to the hospital and considered treatment with intravenous anticoagulates, which would have 

made possible a complete recovery without any residual 

deficit. 

In August 2002, the VA examined Mr. Rodriguez, and 

issued a Statement of the Case maintaining its denial of 

his 38 U.S.C. § 1151 benefits claim. In September 2002, 

Mr. Rodriguez’s disability rating was increased to seventy 

percent for his back condition, effective June 2000. In 

October 2002, Mr. Rodriguez was again denied residuals 

of a CVA. Mr. Rodriguez appealed that decision to the 

Board, which remanded his claim for additional development. After additional evidence was obtained, the VARO

again denied his claim for § 1151 benefits. Mr. Rodriguez 

appealed that decision and, in May 2005, the Board again 

denied his claim. In January 2007, after Mr. Rodriguez 

had again appealed, the parties agreed the previous VA 

examination had not adequately addressed all of Mr. 

Rodriguez’s VA treatment records from May 2000. Accordingly, the Veterans Court granted the parties’ request 

for a joint remand of the Board’s May 2005 decision. Mr. 

Rodriguez then underwent a VA brain and spinal cord 

examination in November 2008, and the examiner determined “it was less likely than not that any additional 

disability associated with [Mr. Rodriguez’s] CVA was 

caused by carelessness, negligence, lack of skill or error in 

judgment on the part of the VA.” Id. at 5. 

Case: 15-7037 Document: 12-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/18/2015
RODRIGUEZ v. MCDONALD 5

The VARO again denied entitlement in December 

2009 and January 2011 to a disability rating over seventy 

percent for his back condition and denied entitlement to 

§ 1151 benefits for residuals of a CVA.

In January 2012, the Board denied Mr. Rodriguez’s 

claim for an increased rating for his back disability but 

remanded his § 1151 claim. The Board instructed the VA 

to determine whether Mr. Rodriguez’s CVA residuals (and 

not the accident itself) were caused by the treatment he 

received from the VA in early May 2000. The Board also 

instructed the VA to determine whether, if the residuals 

were caused by the VA treatment, the proximate cause of 

the residuals was carelessness, negligence, lack of proper 

skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the 

part of the VA. 

In accordance with this directive, Mr. Rodriguez underwent a central nervous system and neuromuscular 

diseases examination by a new VA physician. That 

examiner determined his CVA residuals were not a result 

of the May 2000 VA treatment and noted that the testing 

conducted on May 1 and 2, 2000, did not indicate Mr. 

Rodriguez had suffered from a CVA. The examiner also 

noted that, after Mr. Rodriguez’s MRI at the VA on May 

3, 2000, indicated a CVA, he was directed to go to the 

emergency room in Dallas recommended by the treating 

VA physician, but chose to go to another hospital. Because of these findings, in July 2012, the VA again denied 

Mr. Rodriguez’s § 1151 benefits claim since the evidence 

failed to demonstrate his CVA residuals were the fault of 

the VA. In February 2013, after a remand order relating 

to his back disability claim, the VARO again denied his 

claim. 

Mr. Rodriguez appealed to the Veterans Court, which 

affirmed the Board’s denial of § 1151 benefits for his CVA 

residuals. 

Case: 15-7037 Document: 12-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/18/2015
6 RODRIGUEZ v. MCDONALD

Mr. Rodriguez timely appeals and this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (2012). 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the 

Veterans Court is limited by statute. Pursuant to 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(a), this court has jurisdiction to review “the 

validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of 

law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual 

matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in 

making the decision.” Except to the extent that a constitutional issue is presented, this court may not review “a 

challenge to a factual determination,” or “a challenge to a 

law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular 

case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2)(A)–(B). The Veterans Court’s legal 

determinations are reviewed de novo. Cushman v. 

Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

II. This Court Does Not Possess Jurisdiction Over Mr. 

Rodriguez’s Appeal

The Veterans Court explicitly held that the Board’s 

“determination regarding entitlement to compensation 

under Section 1151 is a factual finding that [the Veterans 

Court] reviews under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of 

review.” Resp’t’s App. 10. According to the Board, “the 

examiner was not required to discuss specific evidence or 

provide reasons or bases for her opinion,” contrary to Mr. 

Rodriguez’s arguments below. Id. at 11. On appeal to 

this court, Mr. Rodriguez argues the Veterans Court 

“fail[ed] to direct the [Board2] to give back” to Mr. Rodri2 In his Informal Brief, Mr. Rodriguez argues the 

Veterans Court “fail[e]d to direct the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to give [him] his [§] 1151” 

 

Case: 15-7037 Document: 12-2 Page: 6 Filed: 05/18/2015
RODRIGUEZ v. MCDONALD 7

guez the § 1151 benefits and asks this court to reverse the 

Veterans Court. Pet’r’s Br. 1. However, Mr. Rodriguez 

provides no support for his request, and appears to disagree with the Board’s factual findings, which this court

cannot review. 

We have consistently applied 38 U.S.C. § 7292 to 

strictly bar fact-based appeals from decisions of the 

Veterans Court. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Principi, 273 F.3d 

1072, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Because it is clear that the 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims merely applied the 

statute to the facts, its decision falls outside our jurisdiction under the express terms of 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).”); 

Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 

(This court’s jurisdiction is “restricted to entertaining 

appeals that seek review of the validity of any statute or 

regulation, or any interpretations thereof, or that raise 

constitutional controversies.”). 

To the extent Mr. Rodriguez’s appeal can be construed 

as arguing the Board misapplied § 1151 to the circumstances of his case, he contests the application of law to 

facts. Under § 1151, a veteran with a qualifying disability 

is required to show fault on the part of the VA by establishing two elements: (1) the qualifying disability was 

caused by treatment or care by VA or in a VA facility; and 

(2) the proximate cause of the disability was “carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or 

similar instance of fault on the part of the [VA], or ‘an 

event not reasonably foreseeable.’” Viegas v. Shinseki, 705 

F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also 38 U.S.C. § 1151

(a)(1)(A)–(B).

benefits. Pet’r’s Br. 1 ¶4 (emphasis added). We assume he 

intended to state the Veterans Court failed to reverse the 

Board, and erred in not directing the Board to give him 

§ 1151 benefits. 

 

Case: 15-7037 Document: 12-2 Page: 7 Filed: 05/18/2015
8 RODRIGUEZ v. MCDONALD

Here, the Veterans Court determined the Board correctly found Mr. Rodriguez did not show that the “VA 

physicians failed to exercise the degree of skill and care of 

a reasonable medical professional” when they treated Mr. 

Rodriguez because the physician’s letter Mr. Rodriguez 

provided contained no opinion as to the reasonableness of 

the care provided to him by the VA. Resp’t’s App. 12. Mr. 

Rodriguez offers no argument relating to this on appeal, 

and we discern no error with the Veterans Court’s holding. Because this court lacks jurisdiction to review “a 

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

law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular 

case,” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), Mr. Rodriguez’s appeal is 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the 

Veterans Court is 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No Costs. 

Case: 15-7037 Document: 12-2 Page: 8 Filed: 05/18/2015