NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOE A. VANN, JR.,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2014-7119

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-0932, Judge Coral Wong 

Pietsch.

______________________ 

Decided: April 14, 2015

______________________ 

 JOE A. VANN, JR., Tulsa, OK, pro se. 

JOSHUA E. KURLAND, 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., KIRK 

T. MANHARDT; DAVID J. BARRANS, CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, 

Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
 2 VANN v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Joe A. Vann, Jr. appeals from the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

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

Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that denied service connection for Vann’s lower back pain. Because Vann challenges 

only factual determinations or application of the law or 

regulations to the facts, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

Vann served on active duty in the United States Army 

from September 1973 to May 1974. Vann claims that he 

injured his back during basic training, and first sought 

treatment in January 1974. Vann stated that he had 

experienced chronic back pain since November 1973, but 

the treating physician noted that x-rays taken at the time 

were “essentially negative.” Vann v. Gibson, No. 13-0932, 

2014 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 979, at *2 (Vet. App. 

June 6, 2014). Service records show that Vann had 

previously suffered from a bladder infection that led to 

similar pain in his back. Vann also had a prior history of 

cystitis and endured occasional pain in the left hip. 

During his April 1974 service separation examination, 

Vann reported no recurrent back pain and his clinical 

examination identified no abnormalities with his back.

Vann subsequently injured his back in a November 

1996 accident at work when he slipped on ice. His doctor 

diagnosed Vann with “acute lumbosacral sprain with 

right sciatica and an acute cervical sprain with cephalgia,” leading to an abnormal range of motion in his back. 

Id. 
VANN v. MCDONALD 3

Vann underwent a Veterans Affairs (“VA”) examination in July 1998 in light of his claims for non-service 

connected pension benefits. Vann reported continued 

back and leg pain due to his service injury and his fall at 

work. The examiner diagnosed Vann with a chronic 

lumbar spine strain, but imaging tests revealed that his 

disc spaces and vertebral body heights were preserved. In 

August 1998, the VA regional office denied his claim for 

non-service connected benefits, and Vann did not appeal 

the decision.

From September 1998 through February 2010, Vann 

continued to seek treatment for his lower back pain. A 

January 1999 report by a private physician noted that 

Vann’s lower back pain was initially caused by the jobrelated injury in 1996, and was exacerbated by a May 

1998 automobile accident. A September 1999 VA examination report diagnosed Vann with degenerative disk 

disease of the lumbosacral spine.

Vann filed a claim in December 2003 for service 

connected benefits due to his lower back pain. The regional office denied his claim, and Vann did not appeal. 

Vann continued to seek treatment for his lower back pain, 

and VA examiners, in 2007, identified a limited range of 

motion in his spine. Vann then attempted to reopen his 

prior claim for benefits, but the regional office found that 

Vann failed to submit new and material evidence. Vann 

submitted a Notice of Disagreement, and the regional 

office reopened his claim on June 2010 but denied his 

claim on the merits. On appeal, the Board remanded 

Vann’s claim with instructions for the VA to provide Vann 

with a new examination. 

In September 2011, Vann underwent a comprehensive 

examination for his chronic lower back pain. The examiner reviewed Vann’s medical history and diagnosed Vann 

with mild degenerative disk disease. Vann stated that his 

back had consistently bothered him, dating back to his 
 4 VANN v. MCDONALD

basic training activities in 1973. An x-ray revealed degenerative changes to the spine, but no evidence of fractures or dislocations. Vann could not move his back, so 

the examiner could not perform range of motion testing, 

but the examiner found “no localized tenderness, pain to 

palpation, guarding, muscle spasm, weakness, or fixed 

deformity.” Id. at *5. The examiner identified mild loss 

of vertebral height for one vertebrae, but the remainder of 

vertebrae were normal. The examiner concluded that it 

was unlikely that an injury during military service caused 

Vann’s lower back pain, in part because x-rays taken in

November 1973 were essentially negative and because of 

his prior history of bladder infection and cystitis. The 

examiner instead concluded that normal wear and tear 

due to age and Vann’s prior occupation as a truck driver 

likely caused his injuries. A January 2012 addendum to 

the examiner’s report noted that her opinion did not 

change in light of new evidence, and that normal aging 

and his prior injuries due to the 1996 job accident and 

1998 automobile accident were still the most likely cause 

of his lower back pain. 

The Board denied Vann’s request for service connection in a December 17, 2012 opinion. The Board found 

that Vann’s “current low[er] back disorder is not related 

to his military service or to any incident therein.” Joint 

Appendix 17. After comprehensively reviewing Vann’s 

medical history, the Board first noted that Vann’s statements regarding his back pain were internally inconsistent. Vann first complained of back pain in 1973, but 

evidence in the record demonstrated a twenty-two year 

gap until his next report of back pain due to the 1996 

work injury. Further, Vann denied any lower back pain 

during his separation examination, and he previously told 

VA examiners that his lower back pain dated to 1996. 

The Board also found that the medical evidence of record, 

especially the 2011 examiner’s report, showed that other 

post-service injuries and normal wear and tear of age and 
VANN v. MCDONALD 5

his employment as a truck driver, not any basic training 

injury, most likely caused Vann’s lower back pain. 

Vann appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans 

Court. Vann argued that the Board failed to consider all 

evidence of record by ignoring evidence of Vann’s hip pain 

during service and his testimony of continuity dating back 

to basic training. Vann also argued that the September 

2011 examination was inadequate because the examiner 

failed to provide an adequate rationale for her opinion. 

The Veterans Court first concluded that the Board had 

not clearly erred in finding no service connection. Vann, 

No. 13-0932, 2014 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 979, at 

*9–11. The court noted that the Board discussed Vann’s 

in-service back and hip pain, and fully analyzed Vann’s 

service and post-service medical records. Id. at *11. 

According to the Veterans Court, the Board also correctly 

considered Vann’s lay testimony regarding continuity of 

his injury, but found his statements to not be credible due 

to inconsistencies. Id. at *11–12. The court further 

concluded that Vann’s arguments regarding the Board’s 

treatment of the medical evidence in the record constituted “nothing more than a disagreement with how the 

Board weighed the evidence of record.” Id. at *12. And 

the court found that the Board’s statement that the 2011 

examiner’s report was the “most salient and relevant

evidence,” did not indicate that the Board ignored favorable evidence. Id. at *13. Finally, the court determined 

that the Board did not clearly err in finding that the 2011 

examination was adequate. Id. at *14–16. The court held 

that the examiner thoroughly reviewed Vann’s claim file 

and adequately discussed both the evidence on record and 

her rationale. Id. at *15–16.

Vann timely appealed to this court on November 18, 

2014.
 6 VANN v. MCDONALD

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review of the Veterans Court’s decision is limited by statute. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c) 

(2012), we have “exclusive jurisdiction to review and 

decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or 

regulation or any interpretation thereof brought under 

this section, and to interpret constitutional and statutory 

provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a 

decision.” We are to “hold unlawful and set aside a regulation or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied upon” by 

the Veterans Court if we find the regulation “to be:

(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law;

(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;

(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, 

or limitations, or in violation of a statutory right; 

or 

(D) without observance of procedure required by 

law.”

Id. at § 7292(d)(1). We may not, however, review “a 

challenge to a factual determination, or a challenge to a 

law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular 

case” except “to the extent an appeal . . . presents a constitutional issue.” Id. at § 7292(d)(2).

On appeal, Vann argues that the VA does not “understand what really happened to me and how I was treated 

as a young 17 year old soldier.” Pet’r’s Informal Br. at 1. 

Vann states that he was “[permanently] injured in training trying to do the right thing,” and that he has “severe 

anxiety that occurred in the military that I suffer [with] 

daily.” Id. Vann claims that his injury was “ignored by 
VANN v. MCDONALD 7

the medical staff in basic training,” and “was told to finish 

training or be recycle[d].” Id. at 2.1 

Vann fails to appeal any issue over which we have 

jurisdiction. Regarding Vann’s complaints of anxiety, 

Vann, who at the time was represented by counsel, failed 

to raise that issue before either the Board or the Veterans 

Court. We generally do not decide issues that a petitioner 

failed to raise before the Veterans Court. Forshey v. 

Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc). 

As for the Veterans Court and Board’s analysis of 

Vann’s lower back pain, Vann argued to the Veterans 

Court that the Board failed to sufficiently consider all 

evidence of record, and the September 2011 examination 

was inadequate. These arguments, as the Veterans Court 

correctly identified, involve either purely factual determinations or, at most, application of law or regulations to 

the facts. The Board’s weighing of the evidence and 

finding of no service connection are questions of fact that 

we lack jurisdiction to review. Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 

F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The evaluation and 

weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate 

inferences from it are factual determinations committed 

1 Vann also checked a box on his informal brief indicating that the Veterans Court decided a constitutional 

issue. Vann did not, however, raise any constitutional 

arguments and the Veterans Court decision did not discuss any constitutional considerations. As Vann’s appeal 

focuses entirely on the merits of the Veterans Court 

decision, his characterization of his appeal as involving 

constitutional issues does not control our jurisdiction. 

Flores v. Nicholson, 476 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 

(finding that an appellant’s characterization of an argument as constitutional is not dispositive when the underlying argument fails to raise “a separate constitutional 

issue”).

 
 8 VANN v. MCDONALD

to the discretion of the fact-finder.”). The adequacy of a 

medical examination and medical opinion are also questions of fact that we lack jurisdiction to review. See, e.g., 

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

(“[T]he sufficiency of a medical opinion is a matter beyond 

our jurisdictional reach, because the underlying question 

is one of fact.”); Cook v. Principi, 353 F.3d 937, 940–41 

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding that the sufficiency of the Board’s 

statement of the reasons for its decisions includes the 

application of law to facts). Even broadly construing 

Vann’s pro se appeal to our Court and the arguments 

made by his counsel to the Veterans Court, Vann fails to 

raise any argument or issue that we have jurisdiction to 

consider on appeal. Because we are without jurisdiction 

to review Vann’s appeal, we must dismiss his appeal for 

want of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.