Court Opinion

ID: 9384878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 15:00:49.795798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:57.124007
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1119   Document: 17     Page: 1   Filed: 04/05/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                  BYRON R. FISHER,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

       DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
              VETERANS AFFAIRS,
               Respondent-Appellee
              ______________________

                       2023-1119
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 21-7609, Judge Joseph L. Falvey
 Jr.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: April 5, 2023
                 ______________________

    BYRON FISHER, Peekskill, NY, pro se.

     PATRICK ANGULO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office
 of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
 Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 23-1119     Document: 17     Page: 2    Filed: 04/05/2023

 2                                      FISHER   v. MCDONOUGH

                   ______________________

     Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
      Byron R. Fisher, a veteran of the U.S. Army, appeals a
 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
 Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court dismissed
 Fisher’s appeal of a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
 peals (“Board”) that denied Fisher earlier effective dates
 for his disabilities. Because Fisher’s arguments are beyond
 the limited jurisdiction of our court, we dismiss the appeal.
                               I
     Fisher served in the U.S. Army from July 1999 to Feb-
 ruary 2002 and from June 2006 to October 2010. In 2010,
 Fisher filed a pre-discharge benefits claim seeking service
 connection for, among other things, a skin condition, a left
 ankle condition, and a swollen left foot. In a decision dated
 November 23, 2010 (“2010 Decision”), a Department of Vet-
 erans Affairs (“VA”) regional office (“RO”) denied service
 connection for the skin condition and the left ankle condi-
 tion and granted service connection for left foot pes planus
 with a 0 percent rating, effective October 20, 2010. 1 Fisher
 did not appeal this decision and it became final.
     On March 3, 2021, Fisher filed a disability claim for ve-
 nous insufficiency, a left ankle condition, a left foot condi-
 tion, and eczema in both hands. Later that month, on
 March 23, 2021, Fisher filed a supplemental claim seeking
 benefits for edema in his left foot and ankle, eczema, and
 pes planus. In April 2021, the RO increased the disability
 rating for Fisher’s pes planus to 20 percent, effective March
 3, 2021, and granted service connection for venous

     1 A medical examiner diagnosed Fisher’s swollen left
 foot as pes planus.
Case: 23-1119     Document: 17      Page: 3    Filed: 04/05/2023

 FISHER   v. MCDONOUGH                                        3

 insufficiency (claimed as edema in the left foot and ankle),
 assigning a 10 percent disability rating effective March 23,
 2021. Shortly after, in May 2021, the RO granted service
 connection for dermatitis (claimed as eczema) with a 60%
 disability rating effective March 23, 2021. Fisher filed a
 notice of disagreement with the rating decisions of April
 2021 and May 2021, seeking earlier effective dates for his
 left foot pes planus, venous insufficiency, and skin condi-
 tion.
      In October 2021, the Board issued two decisions. The
 Board found that Fisher first claimed his dermatitis (also
 claimed as a skin condition and eczema) and venous insuf-
 ficiency (also claimed as edema in the left foot and ankle)2
 on March 3, 2021, so this was the earliest proper effective
 date for those disabilities. The Board observed that, while
 Fisher had also claimed these disabilities before leaving ac-
 tive duty in October 2010, the RO had denied service con-
 nection for those conditions in the 2010 Decision, which
 became final when Fisher did not appeal it. Therefore,
 Fisher’s 2010 claim could not serve as a basis for an earlier
 effective date. As for the left foot pes planus, the Board
 found Fisher failed to allege that the 2010 Decision con-
 tained a clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”), as would
 be required to obtain revision or reversal of a final decision.
 Accordingly, the Board dismissed this portion of the ap-
 peal.
     Fisher appealed the Board’s decisions to the Veterans
 Court. In August 2022, the Veterans Court agreed with the
 Board that “the only way for Fisher to seek earlier dates
 for his disabilities based on his 2010 claim would be to al-
 lege that the final November 2010 decision contained

     2   The Board also construed Fisher’s March 3, 2021
 claim for a left ankle condition as a claim for venous insuf-
 ficiency.
Case: 23-1119     Document: 17      Page: 4    Filed: 04/05/2023

 4                                       FISHER   v. MCDONOUGH

 CUE.” S.A. 4. 3 Fisher, however, failed to raise the CUE
 issue before the Board, and he could not raise it for the first
 time at the Veterans Court. Thus, the Veterans Court dis-
 missed Fisher’s appeal.
                               II
     We have exclusive, but limited, jurisdiction to re-
 view decisions of the Veterans Court. See 38 U.S.C.
 § 7292(c); Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786, 788-89
 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “We may review legal questions, includ-
 ing the validity of any statute or regulation or any inter-
 pretation thereof.” Sullivan, 815 F.3d at 788-89. Such
 legal determinations are reviewed de novo. See Cushman
 v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We may
 not, however, review (1) “a challenge to a factual determi-
 nation” or (2) “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied
 to the facts of a particular case,” unless the challenge pre-
 sents a constitutional issue. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
     Fisher’s appeal does not present any issue within the
 scope of our jurisdiction. Fisher first challenges the 2010
 Decision’s finding that he did not have chronic swelling in
 his left foot and ankle. See Appellant’s Br. at 1. This ar-
 gument presents an issue of fact which we lack jurisdiction
 to review. In the 2010 Decision, the RO explicitly discussed
 the medical records from September 2009 and March 2008
 documenting the swelling of Fisher’s left foot and ankle, see
 S.A. 51, 53, and we lack jurisdiction to review the weight
 given to them, see Goodman v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d 1383,
 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
     Second, Fisher argues his 2010 medical examination
 involved CUE because the RO “stat[ed] that [Fisher’s] skin
 was healthy based solely on a summer examination, de-
 spite acknowledging that the Appellant’s eczema started

     3  “S.A.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed
 with the Secretary’s brief.
Case: 23-1119    Document: 17       Page: 5   Filed: 04/05/2023

 FISHER   v. MCDONOUGH                                      5

 during the winter.” Appellant’s Br. at 2. This contention,
 too, presents an issue of fact which we lack jurisdiction to
 review. See Prinkey v. Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375, 1382-83
 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
     Finally, Fisher argues that VA violated 18 U.S.C.
 §§ 1001 and 1519 because a medical examiner allegedly
 submitted false documents to the VA. See Appellant’s Br.
 at 1; Reply Br. at 1. Fisher identifies no express or implied
 reliance by the Veterans Court on a misinterpretation of
 these provisions in its decision. Further, Fisher did not ad-
 equately present this argument to the Veterans Court. See
 Carbino v. West, 168 F.3d 32, 35 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[T]he
 Court of Veterans Appeals properly declined to consider . .
 . untimely contentions” “raised for the first time in a reply
 brief.”). It is, therefore, forfeited. See Emenaker v. Peake,
 551 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[W]ith limited ex-
 ceptions, appellate courts do not consider issues that were
 not raised in the tribunal from which the appeal is taken,
 and we have held that those general principles of appellate
 practice apply in the context of appeals from the Veterans
 Court.”).
                              III
     We have considered Fisher’s remaining arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given, we dismiss
 Fisher’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
                         DISMISSED
                            COSTS
 No costs.