N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________

PAUL T. CHALSTROM, Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________
2010-7033

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in case no. 08-713, Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

__________________________

Decided: December 9, 2010

__________________________
M ICHAEL J. C ARROLL , Babich, Goldman, Cashatt & Renzo, Des Moines, Iowa, for claimant-appellant.

C OURTNEY S. M CNAMARA , Trial Attorney, CommercialLitigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondentappellee. With her on the brief were T ONY W EST , Assis-CHALSTROM v. DVA 2

tant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Director, and H AROLD D. L ESTER , J R ., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were M ICHAEL J. T IMINSKI , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and D ANA R AFFAELLI , Attorney,United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

__________________________
Before D YK , P ROST , and M OORE , Circuit Judges

. P ROST , Circuit Judge

.

Appellant Paul T. Chalstrom appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“Board’s”) denial of his claim for entitlement toservice connection for nephropathy, gout, and hypertension. Chalstrom v. Shinseki , No. 08-713, 2009 WL 3157583 (Ct. Vet. App. Oct. 2, 2009). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

B ACKGROUND

Mr. Chalstrom served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1969 through March 1971. Based on his service, Mr. Chalstrom filed a claim for service connection for nephropathy, gout, and hypertension with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) RegionalOffice (“RO”). In June 2004, the RO denied service connection for nephropathy. In October 2006, the RO also denied service connection for gout and hypertension. Mr. Chalstrom appealed to the Board.

The Board noted that Mr. Chalstrom’s service medical records did not contain evidence of nephropathy, gout, or hypertension. Further Mr. Chalstrom’s nephropathy wasCHALSTROM v. DVA 3

diagnosed twenty years after service discharge, his hypertension was diagnosed twenty-fi ve years after discharge, and his gout was diagnosed mo re than thirty years after discharge. Weighing the av ailable evidence, the Board determined that the preponderance of evidence was against Mr. Chalstrom’s claims.

The Veterans Court affirmed the decision of the Board. The Veterans Court noted that the Board weighed the available VA medical opinions and the opinion of aprivate nurse practitioner and determined that the private nurse practitioner’s opinion was based on factual

error. See Chalstrom , at *2. Thus, the Veterans Court held that the Board’s decision denying service connection for nephropathy, gout, and hypertension was not clearly

erroneous. Id.

D ISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Chalstrom argues that the private medical opinion evidence in su pport of his claim of service connection is at least in eq uipoise with the VA examinations and that the Veterans Court therefore erred in not giving him the benefit of the doubt. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107. Mr. Chalstrom asks this court to either reverse the Veterans Court’s determination as clearly erroneous or remand for further consideration of the private medical opinion.

The government argues that Mr. Chalstrom should be precluded from raising his argument that the evidence ofthe private and VA medical opinions are at least in equipoise. The government contends that this argument was not raised before the Veterans Court. The government further asserts that even if the new argument is not waived, this court should dismi ss for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the government asserts that the Veterans CourtCHALSTROM v. DVA 4

properly determined that the Board did not clearly err and that a remand would be inappropriate because the Veterans Court is not authorized to weigh the evidence.

“Our jurisdiction to review the decisions of the [Veterans Court] is limited by statute.” Summers v. Gober , 225 F.3d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . While this court is authorized to “decide all rele vant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions,”we cannot adjudicate “(A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation asapplied to the facts of a particular case,” unless a constitutional issue is presented. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d).

As a preliminary matter, we note that—at the Veterans Court—Mr. Chalstrom raised the argument that “the Board’s statement of reasons or bases is inadequate with regard to its assignment of greater weight to the 2006 VA medical opinion (and a 2004 VA medical opinion) than to an April 2006 nurse practitioner’s opinion.” Chalstrom , at *2. However, even accepting his arguments on appeal as not being waived is of no mo ment because we lack jurisdiction over his appeal. Mr. Chalstrom’s arguments would require this court to re view the record evidence on the merits. We are not authorized by Congress to review a challenge to a factual dete rmination or to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case unless the appeal presents a constitutional issue. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Becaus e Mr. Chalstrom does not raise a constitutional issue th at provides a basis for our court to hear his case, we la ck jurisdiction over his appeal.

C OSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.CHALSTROM v. DVA 5

DISMISSED