NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NORMAND P. RAINVILLE,

Claimant-Appellant, 

v.

SLOAN D. GIBSON, 

Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee. 

______________________ 

2014-7052

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-70, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch.

______________________ 

Decided: July 11, 2014 

______________________ 

NORMAND P. RAINVILLE, of Apple Creek, Ohio, pro se. 

RICHARD P. SCHROEDER, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondentappellee. With him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, 

Assistant Attorney General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

Director, and CLAUDIA BURKE, Assistant Director. Of 

counsel on the brief were Y. KEN LEE, Deputy Assistant 

General Counsel, and CHRISTINA GREGG, Attorney, United 
2 RAINVILLE v. GIBSON

States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, 

DC. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Normand P. Rainville appeals from the judgment of 

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(Veterans Court) affirming the decision of the Board of 

Veterans Appeals (Board) denying Mr. Rainville’s claim 

for service connection for a cervical spine disability. We 

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Rainville served in the United States Army from 

1966 to 1970. In 1967, Mr. Rainville suffered a mild 

concussion after colliding with the wing of a stationary 

missile. He was hospitalized for two days, but his skull Xrays were reported as normal. In 1969, Mr. Rainville 

complained of muscle soreness in his back after he was in 

a motor vehicle accident. The X-rays following the incident were negative for fractures. Mr. Rainville’s 1970 

service separation examination was normal and he did 

not report any neck pain on the health history questionnaire. 

In April 2007, Mr. Rainville was diagnosed with cervical spondylotic myelopathy and degenerative joint disease 

of the cervical spine following an X-ray and magnetic 

resonance image (MRI). The X-ray and MRI did not 

reveal any fracture or dislocation of the cervical spine. 

Following his diagnosis, Mr. Rainville filed a claim for 

service connection for conditions which he characterized 

as resulting from his 1967 in-service collision with the 

wing of the stationary missile. He alleged that the damage to his cervical spine diagnosed in 2007 was a result of 

a long-term progressive degeneration triggered by the 
RAINVILLE v. GIBSON 3

missile wing collision. Mr. Rainville supported his claim 

with a statement by his physician noting that it was 

possible that Mr. Rainville’s degenerative condition was

incited or worsened by prior injuries. The physician’s

statement also explained that he could not definitively 

determine whether this was so without appropriate 

medical records from the time of injury. 

The Board denied Mr. Rainville’s claim. It relied upon Mr. Rainville’s medical history as well as various

medical opinions obtained in 2010 and 2012 in concluding

that Mr. Rainville’s neck condition was not serviceconnected. The Veterans Court affirmed. It determined 

that there was a plausible basis for the Board’s decision

and that the Board provided an adequate basis for its 

conclusions. Mr. Rainville appeals. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. We have jurisdiction to 

review a decision of the Veterans Court “with respect to 

the validity of a decision of the Court on a rule of law or of 

any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof 

. . . that was relied on by the [Veterans Court] in making 

the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) (2012). We lack 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). 

On appeal, Mr. Rainville makes two arguments. 

First, he argues that the Veterans Court erred in not 

applying the “benefit of the doubt rule” to his case. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 1. Second, he argues that the Board 

erred in failing to obtain the X-rays from his 1967 missile 

wing collision. Appellant’s Informal Br. Attach. 1 at 1–2. 

Mr. Rainville’s argument concerning the application 

of the “benefit of the doubt rule” is a factual challenge 

over which we lack jurisdiction. That rule states that, 
4 RAINVILLE v. GIBSON

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

negative evidence regarding any issue material to the 

determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the 

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

The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s fact finding that 

the preponderance of the evidence did not support entitlement to service connection. Because the evidence was 

not in equipoise, the Veterans Court held that the Board 

did not err in failing to apply the “benefit of the doubt 

rule.” Importantly, Mr. Rainville does not raise any 

challenge to the lawfulness or interpretation of this rule. 

Cf. Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1288–90 (Fed. Cir. 

2009). Mr. Rainville’s challenge to the interpretation or 

weighing of the evidence is beyond our jurisdiction. See 

38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

Mr. Rainville’s complaint that the Board erred in failing to obtain his 1967 X-rays amounts to a challenge to 

the reliability of the evidence used to establish that Mr. 

Rainville lacked service connection and is therefore outside of our jurisdiction. The Board concluded that a 

written report associated with the 1967 X-rays was adequate and reliable evidence of Mr. Rainville’s 1967 injuries. In other words, it determined that the 1967 X-rays 

would have been cumulative over the 1967 written report. 

Reliability of evidence is a factual determination for the 

Board. See Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997). To address the merits of Mr. Rainville’s argument would require us to make our own factual determination as to whether the 1967 written report was

indeed reliable evidence. We lack jurisdiction to undertake such fact-based review and therefore cannot reach 

the merits of Mr. Rainville’s challenge. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED
RAINVILLE v. GIBSON 5

COSTS

No costs.