NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WALTER C. REHM, JR.,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7065

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-3188, Judge Lawrence B. 

Hagel.

______________________ 

Decided: March 2, 2016

______________________ 

MATTHEW J. ILACQUA, Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick, Providence, RI, argued for claimant-appellant. Also 

represented by ZACHARY STOLZ, ROBERT VINCENT 

CHISHOLM; CHRISTOPHER J. CLAY, Disabled American 

Veterans, Cold Spring, KY; BARBARA J. COOK, Cincinnati, 

OH.

 MARTIN M. TOMLINSON, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 
2 REHM v. MCDONALD

Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. 

Also represented by ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., BENJAMIN C. MIZER; MARTIE ADELMAN, Y.

KEN LEE, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

STOLL, Circuit Judge.

Walter C. Rehm appeals from the final decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of 

Veterans Appeals (“Board”), which denied Mr. Rehm 

entitlement to service-connected benefits for a psychiatric 

disorder. Rehm v. McDonald, No. 13-3188, 2015 WL 

78764 (Vet. App. Jan. 7, 2015). Because Mr. Rehm fails to 

present a question within our jurisdiction, we dismiss.

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. We may review a Veterans 

Court decision with respect to the validity of a decision on 

a rule of law or the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation relied on by the Veterans Court in 

making the decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Unless a 

constitutional issue is presented, we have no jurisdiction 

to review questions of fact or the application of a law or 

regulation to a particular set of facts. Id. § 7292(d)(2).

 Mr. Rehm first argues that the Veterans Court interpreted the term “adequate medical opinion” and, in 

doing so, contradicted the requirement in 38 C.F.R. § 4.1

that “accurate and fully descriptive medical examinations 

are required.” In particular, Mr. Rehm asserts that to be 

adequate, the medical opinions that the Board considered 

in his case should have discussed lay evidence, such as

statements regarding his behavior following an accident 

he witnessed during his military service.
REHM v. MCDONALD 3

Mr. Rehm next argues that the Veterans Court misinterpreted 38 U.S.C. § 7104, which requires the Board to

provide the reasons or bases for its findings, when it 

stated that the medical “examiners were not required to 

discuss all favorable evidence; rather the Board, in relying 

on an opinion that does not do so, must discuss any additional favorable evidence to comply with its duty to provide an adequate statement of the reasons or bases for its 

decision.” Rehm, 2015 WL 78764, at *3. Mr. Rehm 

asserts that the Board could not fill in gaps in the allegedly inadequate medical opinions by providing its own 

evaluation of the lay evidence of record.

Although Mr. Rehm attempts to frame these two issues as legal questions, “the mere recitation of a basis for 

jurisdiction by a party or a court[] is not controlling; we 

must look to the true nature of the action.” Livingston v. 

Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224, 225 (Fed. Cir. 1992). As we 

have stated:

[W]e have been asked on several occasions to exercise our jurisdiction to judge the sufficiency of a 

medical opinion. In each instance . . . we have 

dismissed the appeals for want of jurisdiction on 

the ground that whether a medical opinion is adequate is a question of fact. . . . 

In each of these several cases, we correctly determined that 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, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2013) 

(collecting cases). We similarly conclude here that 

Mr. Rehm raises issues regarding only the sufficiency of 

medical opinions, an issue of fact outside of our jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we dismiss Mr. Rehm’s appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. 
4 REHM v. MCDONALD

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.