NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 

__________________________ 

MICHAEL J. CARROLL, Babich, Goldman, Cashatt & 

Renzo, Des Moines, Iowa, for claimant-appellant. 

COURTNEY S. MCNAMARA, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondentappellee. With her on the brief were TONY WEST, Assis-
CHALSTROM v. DVA 2

tant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, 

and HAROLD D. LESTER, JR., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and DANA RAFFAELLI, Attorney, 

United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

__________________________ 

Before DYK, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

PROST, 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 to 

service 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. 

BACKGROUND

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”) Regional 

Office (“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 was 
3 CHALSTROM v. DVA

diagnosed twenty years after service discharge, his hypertension was diagnosed twenty-five years after discharge, 

and his gout was diagnosed more than thirty years after 

discharge. Weighing the available 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 a 

private 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.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Chalstrom argues that the private 

medical opinion evidence in support of his claim of service 

connection is at least in equipoise 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 of 

the 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 dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

Finally, the government asserts that the Veterans Court 
CHALSTROM 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 relevant 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 as 

applied 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 moment because we lack jurisdiction over his appeal. Mr. Chalstrom’s arguments 

would require this court to review the record evidence on 

the merits. We are not authorized by Congress to review 

a challenge to a factual determination 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). Because Mr. Chalstrom does not 

raise a constitutional issue that provides a basis for our 

court to hear his case, we lack jurisdiction over his appeal. 

COSTS

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

DISMISSED