NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JAMES A. WHITE,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

 Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2012-7174

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 11-1421, Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

______________________ 

Decided: May 14, 2013 

______________________ 

ROGER A. DECANIO, The Sutter Law Firm, PLLC, of 

Charleston, West Virginia, for claimant-appellant. 

ALEX P. HONTOS, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. 

With him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, 

Director, and MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Assistant Director. 
2 JAMES WHITE v. SHINSEKI

Of counsel on the brief were MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy 

Assistant General Counsel, and LARA K. EILHARDT, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of 

Washington, DC. 

_____________________ 

Before DYK, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James A. White (“White”) appeals a decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”) that affirmed the decision of the Board 

of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying White certain 

benefits. White v. Shinseki, No. 11-1421, 2012 WL 

2298888 (Vet. App. June 19, 2012). Because White fails 

to provide any basis to upset the decision of the Veterans 

Court, this court affirms. 

BACKGROUND

The Board denied White benefits for an innocently acquired psychiatric disorder including post-traumatic 

stress disorder after reviewing the evidence before it, 

including medical reports from the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and White’s treating psychiatrist. 

White appealed this decision to the Veterans Court and 

argued that “the Board provided an inadequate statement 

of reasons or bases regarding the evidence of continuity of 

symptomatology and why it did not warrant service 

connection for his currently diagnosed mood disorder.” Id.

at *1. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision, 

concluding that “the Board adequately explained the basis 

for denying benefits for his currently diagnosed mood 

disorders.” Id. The Veterans Court also concluded that 

White did not show that the Board erred in the relevant 

finding or misapplied the law. White appealed to this 
 JAMES WHITE v. SHINSEKI 3

court and initially filed several briefs that were rejected. 

This court has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). 

DISCUSSION

White makes essentially two arguments why this 

court should decide his disability claim in his favor and 

reverse the decision of the Veterans Court. White first 

argues that this court should adopt the “treating physician” rule under which the opinion of the treating physician is provided greater weight over the opinions of other 

physicians. In making this argument, White discusses 

the facts of his case and cites letters from his treating 

psychiatrist, including one dated September 20, 2012 that 

White acknowledges was not previously considered by the 

Board in this case. White also makes a passing argument 

that the Board inappropriately dismissed the evidence of 

his treating psychiatrist, presumably contending that the 

Board did not adequately state its reasons or basis for 

concluding that such evidence was not sufficient to sustain his claim. White next argues that the Veterans 

Court’s abbreviated opinion provided insufficient notice or 

information for an appeal. 

The government argues that White impermissibly

filed a corrected brief raising different issues, particularly 

the issue of the “treating physician” rule, and that this 

court should only consider the issues raised in his initial 

brief. The government also argues that, if the court 

reaches the issue of the “treating physician” rule, a prior 

decision of this court requires its rejection. As for the 

September 20, 2012 letter from White’s treating psychiatrist, the government argues that this court should not 

consider it because it was not before the Board and, thus, 

is not part of the record on appeal. The government 

further argues that this court should dismiss White’s

appeal based on the challenge to the Board’s reasons 

under 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) because it involves the 
4 JAMES WHITE v. SHINSEKI

application of law to facts, which is outside of this court’s 

jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Similarly, the government argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Board’s weighing of evidence because it involves 

the facts of the case. As to White’s argument on the 

sufficiency of the Veteran’s Court’s opinion, the government argues that no rule requires a written discussion, 

that the Veterans Court considered White’s argument,

and that the Veteran’s Court’s opinion provided sufficient 

notice of its rationale. 

We begin with the argument that the “treating physician” rule should be adopted. There is no need for us to 

address the government’s waiver rule, which is based on 

White’s failure to make that argument in his initial 

rejected brief, as the argument has no merit even if 

properly before us. White’s argument for the “treating 

physician” rule fails because this court has already directly addressed and rejected that rule. See White v. Principi, 

243 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he VA benefits 

statutes and regulations do not provide any basis for the

‘treating physician’ rule and, in fact, appear to conflict 

with such a rule. Moreover, given the comprehensive 

statutory and regulatory scheme for the award of veterans’ benefits, it would not be appropriate for this court to 

impose the ‘treating physician’ rule on the VA.”). “[W]e 

are bound to follow our own precedent as set forth by 

prior panels . . . .” Hometown Fin., Inc. v. United States, 

409 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

With respect to the sufficiency of the Board’s analysis, 

38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) requires that a Board decision 

contain “a written statement of the Board’s findings and 

conclusions, and the reasons or bases for those findings 

and conclusions, on all material issues of fact and law 

presented on the record.” Assessing the sufficiency of the 

Board’s opinion, including any challenge based on the 

September 20, 2012 letter that was not before the Board 
 JAMES WHITE v. SHINSEKI 5

and thus arguably not part of the record on appeal, necessarily entails a review of the factual record or the application of law to fact. Those determinations are beyond our 

authority to review under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), which 

states that this court “may not review (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 the appeal “presents a constitutional issue.” See 

Cook v. Principi, 353 F.3d 937, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (concluding that “Mr. Cook presents us with a question outside of our jurisdiction” when “[t]o agree with Mr. Cook, 

we would first need to conclude that the Veterans Court’s 

application of law, in this case § 7104(d)(1), to the facts, 

here the failure to consider the consent form, was incorrect”). 

As to the sufficiency of the Veterans Court’s decision, 

no law, rule or regulation places a sufficiency requirement 

on an opinion of the Veterans Court. See Bernklau v. 

Principi, 291 F.3d 795, 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“It is wellestablished that a litigant’s right to have all issues fully 

considered and ruled on by the appellate court does not 

equate to a right to a full written opinion on every issue 

raised. While it may be desirable in some cases to afford 

each issue a complete written discussion, no statute or 

rule compels such an approach by the Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims (or indeed any other court).” (citations 

omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, the 

Veterans Court’s opinion reflected that it considered 

White’s argument and provided notice of its rationale for 

an appeal. Any challenge to the sufficiency of the facts 

underlying the Veterans Court’s decision or the application of law to fact would be beyond this court’s authority 

to review. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Veterans 

Court is affirmed. 
6 JAMES WHITE v. SHINSEKI

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.