Opinion ID: 4557214
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New Issues Raised on Appeal

Text: As we understand his informal brief, Mr. Payne raises several arguments that were not before the Veterans Court. For example, Mr. Payne argues that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs’ (“VA”) regulatory prohibition on pyramiding, or evaluating the same disability under various diagnosis, is either unlawful or was inappropriately applied to his case to deny separate ratings for Case: 20-1459 Document: 31 Page: 6 Filed: 08/20/2020 6 PAYNE v. WILKIE HAVS and CTS. App. Inf. Br. at 5–6, 10–12. He also argues that his constitutional due process rights were violated because his service medical records were excluded from consideration by the VA in rating his hand and arm condition, id. at 3, 16–25, and that the administrative record is “missing key medical evidence.” Id. at 8–9. In general, arguments not raised to the Veterans Court are waived. See Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, Veterans Benefits Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-330, § 402(a), 116 Stat. 2820, 2832). Even if these arguments were not waived, they either are plainly meritless or challenge determinations that we lack jurisdiction to review. With respect to Mr. Payne’s argument that pyramiding is unlawful, this court addressed the question in Amberman v. Shinseki, 570 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The court concluded that 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 intends that veterans are compensated for functional loss but that separate diagnoses constitute the same disability if they have overlapping symptomatology. Id. at 1380–81. To the extent Mr. Payne argues that the statute was applied improperly to the facts of his case, or that the Board erred in finding that his symptoms overlapped, this court does not have jurisdiction to review this issue. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Next, Mr. Payne raises a “constitutional due process” challenge alleging that the Board “excluded” his service medical records from consideration or that the Board is missing “key” evidence. App. Inf. Br. at 8–9, 18. However, while Mr. Payne frames his argument as a constitutional challenge, he is in fact challenging the Board’s weighing of evidence in the record. The completeness of the record presents a question of fact outside of this court’s jurisdiction. See Jones v. Wilkie, 918 F.3d 922, 927 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also Newhouse v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“There is a presumption that VA considered all of Case: 20-1459 Document: 31 Page: 7 Filed: 08/20/2020 PAYNE v. WILKIE 7 the evidence of record.”). Accordingly, this court has no jurisdiction to reweigh the evidence before the Board. Mr. Payne’s remaining new arguments involve factual findings or application of law to facts. For reasons outlined above, we dismiss those arguments as outside our jurisdiction.