NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-7061 

ORVILLE H. SIMUNDSON, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Orville H. Simundson, of Cavalier, North Dakota, pro se. 

Lauren S. Moore, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With 

her on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, 

Director, and Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was 

Tracey P. Warren, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States Department 

of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was David J. Barrans, Deputy 

Assistant General Counsel. 

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

Judge Robert N. Davis
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-7061 

ORVILLE H. SIMUNDSON, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 07-0037, Judge 

Robert N. Davis. 

__________________________ 

DECIDED: August 6, 2009 

__________________________ 

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE, Circuit Judge, and CLARK,*

 District Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

Orville H. Simundson 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”) denying Mr. Simundson’s service-connection claims for left 

hip arthritis, lumbar spine arthritis and right eye blindness. Simundson v. Peake, No. 

07-0037 (Vet. App. Dec. 31, 2008). Because Mr. Simundson only seeks review of the 

Veterans Court’s factual determinations, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

 *

 Honorable Ron Clark, District Judge, United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. 
I. BACKGROUND 

 Mr. Simundson served on active duty in the United States Army from October 

1965 to October 1967. His August 1965 enlistment examination revealed no 

abnormalities. An October 1965 vision test showed a 20/25 distant vision in his right 

eye. His September 1967 separation examination similarly showed no abnormalities, 

including a 20/20 distant vision in his right eye. 

 On August 4, 1989, Mr. Simundson sought treatment for lower back pain. The 

record indicated that on that day, “[h]e was climbing out of a grain truck . . . when he 

slipped and fell to the ground landing on his back.” An X-ray evaluation showed no 

fracture but the doctor noted that Mr. Simundson had “what appear[ed] to be a 

Schmorl’s node on L5 and . . . an abscess of the Lordotic curve.” 

In December 1999, Mr. Simundson visited an optometrist who “gave him a clear 

bill of health regarding his eyes.” According to the treatment record, Mr. Simundson 

complained that he had “occasional dizziness with blurred vision.” The problem 

appeared to be resolved once he began wearing glasses. 

On December 18, 2000, Mr. Simundson sought medical help because starting 

two days before, “he was having difficulty seeing out of his right eye.” An optometrist 

diagnosed Mr. Simundson as having a central vein occlusion at the right eye. An 

ultrasound of his right eye, however, appeared normal. An ophthalmologist diagnosed 

Mr. Simundson with “a very florid exudative retinal vasculitis of the right eye.” A VAMC 

outpatient medical record dated March 19, 2002 confirmed this diagnosis. 

In June 2003, Mr. Simundson sought treatment for “generalized ache [that] 

started in his left hip and went up into his left flank.” X-rays revealed a significant 

2009-7061 2
amount of arthritic changes in his spine and mild arthritic change in the left hip “but 

nothing severe.” 

In February 2004, Mr. Simundson filed a claim of service connection for his eye 

disabilities and for arthritis. In his claim, Mr. Simundson stated that he “received a 

powder or muzzle flash in [his] eye while in Vietnam.” He recalled having 20/20 vision 

in both eyes when drafted but having 20/20 vision in one eye and “poorer” vision in the 

other when discharged. Mr. Simundson also stated: “I suspect my arthritis is attributed 

to walking guard as a dog handler in the jungle and getting soaking wet every night for 

several months . . . . I also may have been exposed to agent orange.” 

In March 2004, Mr. Simundson was provided a VA physical examination. In his 

report, the examiner opined that Mr. Simundson’s “claim of retinal vein occlusion in the 

right eye [was] less than likely secondary to or related to his alleged powder or muzzle 

flash injury to his right eye while serving in Vietnam.” In June 2004, the VA Regional 

Office (“RO”) denied Mr. Simundson’s claims because there was no medical record or 

evidence showing service connection. A month later, Mr. Simundson filed a notice of 

disagreement, essentially repeating his statements in the original claim. In October 

2004, the RO issued a statement of the case. Mr. Simundson appealed to the Board. 

Mr. Simundson was afforded another VA examination in December 2004. The 

examiner, an optometrist, again concluded that it was “less than likely that powder in the 

eye or exposure to muzzle flash would result in” Mr. Simundson’s ocular condition. In 

September 2006, the Board concluded that none of the injuries were incurred or 

aggravated by the service. Thus, the Board denied Mr. Simundson’s claims of service 

connection for right eye blindness, left hip and lumbar spine arthritis. 

2009-7061 3
The Veterans Court affirmed. It concluded that the Board’s error in failing to 

explain why VA provided no examination for the arthritis claims was harmless because 

the evidence did not trigger VA’s duty to provide such examination. The Veterans Court 

disagreed with Mr. Simundson’s argument that his discharge examination report was a 

piece of “potentially positive evidence.” Instead, it found no error in the Board’s reading 

of the discharge examination report, i.e., Mr. Simundson’s vision was 20/20 in the right 

eye at discharge. Mr. Simundson appealed. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292 our review of the Veterans Court’s decision is extremely 

limited. We decide “all relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional 

and statutory provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). However, unless the appeal 

presents a constitutional issue, we may not review challenges to factual determinations 

or “to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. at § 7292(d)(2). 

 This appeal involves neither constitutional issues nor the validity or interpretation 

of any statute or regulation. Instead, in his informal brief, Mr. Simundson disagrees with 

the Veterans Court’s analysis of the facts in his case. For example, Mr. Simundson 

complains that “[t]hey left out evidence that was in my favor.” However, he does not 

identify any evidence that is in his favor. Both the Board and the Veterans Court 

considered not only all medical evidence in the record but also Mr. Simundson’s lay 

statements. Mr. Simundson also alleges that the VA has not sent him a copy of his 

original medical record. However, we observe that the record contains Mr. Simundson’s 

medical records, including his military medical records. In addition, when the VA 

transmitted the record upon Mr. Simundson’s appeal to the Veteran Court, it clearly 

2009-7061 4
2009-7061 5

stated that there were “no unresolved disputes between the parties concerning the 

contents of the record.” 

In any event, Mr. Simundson’s arguments all involve factual matters which we do 

not have jurisdiction to consider. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

No costs.