NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SAMUEL KNOX, JR.,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2024-1517

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 22-4230, Judge Scott Laurer.

______________________ 

Decided: September 9, 2024

______________________ 

SAMUEL KNOX, JR., Columbia, SC, pro se.

 KATY M. BARTELMA, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY; CARLING KAY BENNETT, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 09/09/2024
2 KNOX v. MCDONOUGH

Before DYK, CHEN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Samuel Knox, Jr., a veteran of the United States Army, 

proceeding pro se, appeals a decision from the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The 

Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying him entitlement to service 

connection for a sinus disability due to herbicide exposure, 

dengue fever, and other conditions from his time in service. 

The Veterans Court determined that the Board adequately 

explained its reasoning, the Board did not clearly err in its 

decision, and the Board did not fail to enforce the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) duty to assist. Because we 

lack jurisdiction over Mr. Knox’s appeal, we dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Knox served on active duty in the United States 

Army from April 1966 to April 1968, including a tour in

Vietnam. Mr. Knox’s service records from Vietnam show

Mr. Knox had “shoddy post cerv[ical] nodes,”1 as well as a 

“[f]ever of undetermined origin,” which was suspected to be 

from dengue. S.A. 15–16. 

In December 2015, Mr. Knox applied for disability compensation related to “constant draining of mucus membrane and congestion,” as well as headaches and dizziness. 

S.A. 13. Mr. Knox alleged that his conditions were caused 

by the dengue fever that he suffered from during his service. Mr. Knox also alleged his conditions were caused by 

1 In his briefing, Mr. Knox explains that “shoddy 

post cerv[ical] nodes condition is the draining of your paranasals due to lymphatic fluid drain from head and neck.” 

Appellant’s Informal Br. 2; see also Appellant’s Informal 

Br. 5. 

Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 09/09/2024
KNOX v. MCDONOUGH 3

his exposure to herbicides during his service or other conditions of service. In November 2016, the VA denied Mr. 

Knox’s claim. In December 2016, Mr. Knox timely filed a 

Notice of Disagreement (“NOD”). The VA reviewed the 

NOD, and, again, denied the claim. Mr. Knox timely appealed to the Board. 

In May 2019, the Board found that “[t]he medical evidence reflects diagnoses of allergic rhinitis due to pollen 

and chronic maxillary sinusitis, and the service treatment 

records reflect an in-service diagnosis of sho[dd]y post cervical nodes condition.” S.A. 13. The Board determined “a 

VA examination is necessary to determine the etiology of 

his current sinus disability,” which Mr. Knox had not received. Id. The Board remanded to the Regional Office 

(“RO”) to “schedule [Mr. Knox] for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his current sinus disability(ies)” and to evaluate whether it is likely that his 

disabilities are related to his service. S.A. 13–14. 

The RO issued a request to schedule the examination, 

but Mr. Knox “informed VA that he did not want to report 

for a VA examination pertaining to his claim and that his 

claim should be evaluated based on the evidence of record.” 

S.A. 8. The case then returned to the Board. The Board 

determined that because Mr. Knox did not report for his 

examination, it was proper to adjudicate the claim based 

on the evidence in the record. The Board then applied the 

Shedden test2 and concluded that “while the Veteran has a 

2 “[I]n order to establish service connection or service-connected aggravation for a present disability the veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; 

(2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated 

Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 09/09/2024
4 KNOX v. MCDONOUGH

current diagnos[i]s of chronic maxillary sinusitis, and the 

evidence shows that the Veteran had shoddy post cervical 

nodes in service, the evidence of record persuasively weighs 

against finding that the Veteran’s current diagnos[i]s began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service 

injury, event, or disease.” S.A. 8. Thus, the Board denied 

his claim. 

Mr. Knox appealed, and the Veterans Court affirmed 

the Board’s decision, finding the Board did not err in deciding the case based on the evidence in the record without a 

VA medical exam because Mr. Knox failed to appear for his 

requested exam and did not show good cause for his failure 

to appear. The Veterans Court also affirmed the Board’s 

conclusion that the evidence in the record did not show a 

nexus between Mr. Knox’s service and his disability. This 

appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

“Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute.” Flores-Vazquez v. 

McDonough, 996 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “We review ‘the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a 

rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in 

making the decision.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting 

38 U.S.C. § 7292(a)). “[A]bsent a constitutional question, 

we ‘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.’” Id. (quoting § 7292(d)(2)). 

In his briefing, Mr. Knox raises no coherent argument 

that the Veterans Court failed to properly interpret a 

during service.” Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166–

67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 4 Filed: 09/09/2024
KNOX v. MCDONOUGH 5

statute or regulation, nor does he present a constitutional 

question. Mr. Knox essentially asks us to review and reweigh the evidence in the record. This is beyond our jurisdiction. 

Because the Veterans Court did not elaborate on the 

meaning of any statute, regulation, or constitutional question in its opinion, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 5 Filed: 09/09/2024