Court Opinion

ID: 9895502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 16:02:44.511053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:53.459076
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1670    Document: 75     Page: 1   Filed: 11/07/2023

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   JOSEPH A. BELL,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2022-1670
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-3207, Judge Coral Wong Pi-
 etsch.
                 ______________________

                Decided: November 7, 2023
                 ______________________

    JAMES MYERS MORTON, Morton & Morton, PLLC,
 Knoxville, TN, argued for claimant-appellant.

     ANDREW JAMES HUNTER, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.
 Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY, LOREN MISHA PREHEIM; EVAN SCOTT GRANT,
 BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States
 Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
                  ______________________
Case: 22-1670     Document: 75     Page: 2    Filed: 11/07/2023

 2                                        BELL v. MCDONOUGH

     Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
      Joseph A. Bell appeals a decision from the Court of Ap-
 peals for Veterans Claims, affirming the Board of Veterans’
 Appeals decision denying entitlement to an extra-schedu-
 lar rating for his lumbar spine injury. Because the regula-
 tion authorizing the Director of Compensation Service to
 approve an extra-schedular rating does not prohibit the Di-
 rector from considering recommendations from agency of-
 ficials before making this decision, we affirm.
                               I
      Mr. Bell served on active duty from May 1952 to May
 1954 in the U.S. Army, and from November 1955 to April
 1957 in the U.S. Air Force. During service, Mr. Bell sus-
 tained a lower back injury, and years later Mr. Bell filed a
 claim with the Veterans Administration for entitlement to
 service connection for a lumbar spine disability. After a se-
 ries of appeals and remands, Mr. Bell received a 20% disa-
 bility rating for his lumbar spine disability, effective March
 8, 2017. In a December 2019 internal memorandum, the
 agency requested an administrative review by the Director
 of Compensation Service on the issue of entitlement to an
 extra-schedular rating for Mr. Bell’s lumbar spine disabil-
 ity under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). 1 As part of this request,
 the agency recommended denying entitlement to an extra-
 schedular rating. Subsequently, the Director issued an ad-
 visory opinion denying entitlement, finding that the “lum-
 bar spine disability picture does not demonstrate an
 unusual or exceptional disability pattern that would

     1   Section 3.321(b)(1) authorizes the Director to ap-
 prove an extra-schedular disability rating in an “excep-
 tional case where the schedular evaluation is inadequate
 to rate a single service-connected disability[.]”
Case: 22-1670     Document: 75       Page: 3   Filed: 11/07/2023

 BELL v. MCDONOUGH                                            3

 render application of the regular rating criteria impracti-
 cal.” J.A. 7. The regional office issued a supplemental state-
 ment of the case denying entitlement to an extra-schedular
 disability evaluation for the lumbar spine disability, and
 shortly thereafter, the Board likewise denied entitlement.
     Mr. Bell appealed to the Veterans Court, which, in rel-
 evant part, affirmed the Board’s decision. Although the
 Veterans Court found that the Board failed to discuss cer-
 tain medical evidence, it also noted that Mr. Bell “d[id] not
 present any argument, under any applicable authority,
 why he believes that the [c]ourt should reverse the Board’s
 denial of an extra[-]schedular rating.” J.A. 12. Therefore,
 the Veterans Court held that Mr. Bell failed to demonstrate
 that the Board committed any prejudicial error when it de-
 nied entitlement to an extra-schedular rating and affirmed
 the Board’s decision.
     Mr. Bell now appeals. We have jurisdiction over the ap-
 peal under 38 U.S.C. § 7292.
                               II
     Our review of a Veterans Court decision is limited by
 statute. In cases not presenting a constitutional issue, we
 can only review a Veterans Court decision with respect to
 a rule of law or to the validity or interpretation of any stat-
 ute or regulation relied on by the Veterans Court. 38 U.S.C.
 § 7292(a).
                               III
     Mr. Bell’s principal argument on appeal is that the Di-
 rector erred by considering the agency’s recommendation
 to deny entitlement to an extra-schedular rating. Mr. Bell
 argues that 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b), and our holding in Thun
 v. Shinseki, 572 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009), prohibits the
 Director from considering any agency recommendation be-
 fore deciding whether to approve or deny an extra-schedu-
 lar rating. We disagree.
Case: 22-1670    Document: 75      Page: 4    Filed: 11/07/2023

 4                                        BELL v. MCDONOUGH

     Section 3.321(b)(1) states in relevant part that:
       To accord justice to the exceptional case
       where the schedular evaluation is inadequate
       to rate a single service-connected disability,
       the Director of Compensation Service or his or
       her delegate is authorized to approve on the
       basis of the criteria set forth in this paragraph
       (b), an extra-schedular evaluation commensu-
       rate with the average impairment of earning
       capacity due exclusively to the disability.
 The plain language of the regulation does not prohibit the
 Director from considering an agency recommendation be-
 fore making a decision regarding an extra-schedular rat-
 ing. Mr. Bell does not cite to any statutory or regulatory
 authority in support of his argument that the Director can-
 not consider an agency recommendation before making this
 determination. The regulation does nothing more than
 grant the Director authority to approve or grant a request
 for an extra-schedular rating.
     Furthermore, our holding in Thun endorses the
 agency’s long-standing interpretation of § 3.321(b)(1) as al-
 lowing agency recommendations alongside any requests for
 an extra-schedular determination. We explained in Thun
 that “[p]ermitting the regional offices and the Board to is-
 sue a ‘field station submission’ in which they recommend
 extra-schedular consideration still reserves to the Under
 Secretary and the Director the ultimate authority to ‘ap-
 prove’ those recommendations based on whether the vet-
 eran should receive an extra-schedular rating . . . .” Thun,
 572 F.3d at 1370. We then held that “section 3.321(b)(1)
 does not unambiguously preclude the regional offices and
 the Board from performing a threshold inquiry into
 whether a veteran qualifies for extra-schedular considera-
 tion.” Id. at 1369–70. Mr. Bell has not argued or demon-
 strated that the Director failed to exercise independent
 discretion when deciding to deny entitlement to an extra-
Case: 22-1670    Document: 75       Page: 5   Filed: 11/07/2023

 BELL v. MCDONOUGH                                          5

 schedular rating, nor has Mr. Bell argued that Thun is
 somehow distinguishable from this case.
      Accordingly, the Director did not err by considering the
 agency’s recommendation before exercising independent
 discretion to deny entitlement for an extra-schedular rat-
 ing.
                              IV
     We have considered the rest of Mr. Bell’s arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the
 Veterans Court’s decision denying entitlement to an extra-
 schedular rating for Mr. Bell’s lumbar spine disability.
                        AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.