Opinion ID: 2653126
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Right Wrist Disability

Text: On appeal, El Malik raises multiple arguments re- garding his right wrist disability, including: (1) that the AMC did not provide adequate reasons and bases for setting the effective date for the 70 percent rating as of his 2009 VA medical examination and did not look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellant, and (2) that the AMC prejudiced him because of unreasonable delays in conducting the VA medical examination. 4 The Government responds that this Court does not possess jurisdiction to consider these arguments. We agree. This Court does not possess jurisdiction to review the AMC’s rating decision. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. The Board denied El Malik’s claims for a rating higher than 10 percent earlier than September 2009, because “there was no evidence of functional loss necessitating a 70% rating until the September 2009 examination.” El Malik, 2013 WL 3243398, at . The Board reviewed the Sep- tember 2003 examination and found that it was con- sistent with the earlier 10 percent rating given to El Malik. Specifically, the Court explained that the Board found that El Malik’s symptoms of pain, weakness, and trouble gripping supported a 10 percent rating and that contemplation of future wrist fusion did not constitute a compensable injury justifying a current higher rating. Id. at . To the extent El Malik expresses factual disagreement with this evaluation and weighing of the evidence, we lack jurisdiction to address such issues. See 38 U.S.C. 4 El Malik also asserts that his private physician is “more qualified than the VA’s own medical evaluator and [thus] his medical opinions are more probative.” Inf. Br. Appellant 7. Because we read this argument to request a reweighing or reevaluation of the evidence, we decline to address this argument for a lack of jurisdiction. EL MALIK v. SHINSEKI 11 § 7292(d)(2); Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010). El Malik then argues that we possess jurisdiction because he is asking that we review, not how the facts were applied, but how they were ignored. He appears to allege that the lack of an express discounting of facts in the record means that those facts were not considered. The VA is presumed to have considered all evidence of record, however. See Newhouse v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We find that El Malik is simply asking us to reweigh or reevaluate the evidence, which we lack jurisdiction to do so. El Malik finally argues that, but for the delay in receiving his VA medical examination, he would have received an earlier effective date. El Malik’s argument does not articulate any challenge to the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation in the Veterans Court’s decision which would give rise to jurisdiction in this Court. 5 See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (d)(2). We, therefore decline to address it.