Court Opinion

ID: 9931540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 15:01:18.330857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:40.602050
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1347    Document: 28     Page: 1   Filed: 02/09/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

            DANIEL ROSARIO GONZALEZ,
                 Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2023-1347
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-8056, Senior Judge Frank Q.
 Nebeker.
                ______________________

                Decided: February 9, 2024
                 ______________________

    DANIEL ROSARIO GONZALEZ, Sabana Seca, PR, pro se.

     BRITTNEY M. WELCH, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________
Case: 23-1347    Document: 28      Page: 2    Filed: 02/09/2024

 2                                   GONZALEZ v. MCDONOUGH

     Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Daniel Rosario Gonzalez appeals from a decision of the
 United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the
 Veterans Court”) affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals
 (“the Board”) decision that denied Gonzalez’s claim for de-
 pendency and indemnity compensation (“DIC”) benefits.
 Gonzalez v. McDonough, No. 20-8056, 2022 WL 17336496
 (Vet. App. Nov. 30, 2022) (“Decision”). For the reasons de-
 tailed below, we dismiss Gonzalez’s appeal for lack of juris-
 diction.
                        BACKGROUND
      Gonzalez’s father served on active duty in the U.S.
 Army from January 1951 to November 1971. Decision at
 *1. After his father passed away, Gonzalez applied for DIC
 benefits in 2010 at the age of 45. Id.; SAppx. 13. 1 The Vet-
 erans Affairs regional office (“RO”) denied Gonzalez’s
 claim, as it determined that he was not entitled to DIC ben-
 efits because he did not become permanently incapable of
 self-support prior to reaching the age of 18. Id. at *2. Gon-
 zalez timely appealed to the Board, presenting evidence of
 multiple physical and mental disabilities. Id.
     In September 2014, the Board issued an initial decision
 finding that Gonzalez was ineligible for DIC benefits. Id.
 Gonzalez appealed that decision to the Veterans Court,
 which remanded the claim for additional evidentiary devel-
 opment. Id. In November 2020, after additional Board re-
 mands to the RO to further develop the evidence, the Board
 again denied Gonzalez’s claim for DIC benefits. Id. Once
 more, Gonzalez appealed the Board’s determination to the

     1  “SAppx.” refers to the supplemental appendix that
 the government filed in this court with its informal re-
 sponse brief.
Case: 23-1347     Document: 28     Page: 3    Filed: 02/09/2024

 GONZALEZ v. MCDONOUGH                                       3

 Veterans Court, and the court subsequently affirmed the
 Board’s decision. Id. at *5. This appeal follows.
                         DISCUSSION
     Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
 Court is limited. We may review the validity of a decision
 with respect to a rule of law or interpretation of a statute
 or regulation that was relied upon by the Veterans Court
 in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). However, ex-
 cept with respect to constitutional issues, we may not re-
 view challenges to factual determinations or challenges to
 the application of a law or regulation to the facts of a case.
 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
     In reviewing a Veterans Court decision, we decide “all
 relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitu-
 tional and statutory provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1).
 We shall set aside any interpretation thereof “other than a
 determination as to a factual matter” relied upon by the
 Veterans Court that we conclude is “(A) arbitrary, capri-
 cious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
 with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privi-
 lege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction,
 authority, limitations, or in violation of a statutory right;
 or (D) without observance of procedure required by law.”
 Id. We review questions of statutory and regulatory inter-
 pretation de novo. Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1358
 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 1370,
 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
      Relevant here, DIC benefits are payable monthly to
 certain survivors of a veteran who died due to a service-
 connected disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1310. If there is no sur-
 viving spouse of the deceased veteran that is entitled to
 DIC benefits, the benefits are instead available for certain
 children of the veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 1313. And pursuant
 to its statutory definition, a “child” may include an unmar-
 ried person who became permanently incapable of self-sup-
 port before attaining the age of 18.                38 U.S.C.
Case: 23-1347    Document: 28      Page: 4    Filed: 02/09/2024

 4                                   GONZALEZ v. MCDONOUGH

 § 101(4)(A)(ii); see also Sucic v. Wilkie, 921 F.3d 1095,
 1098–99, 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
      Although Gonzalez was 45 years of age at the time he
 initially filed a claim for DIC benefits in 2010, he pursued
 his claim based on an alleged status of becoming perma-
 nently incapable of self-support prior to turning 18 availa-
 ble under 38 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A)(ii).            SAppx. 13.
 Accordingly, Gonzalez presented the Board with evidence
 regarding his various mental and physical disabilities, as
 well as other evidence concerning his capability for self-
 support including testimony regarding his caregiving role
 for his late father. SAppx. 17–23. The Board found that
 the “evidence shows that [Gonzalez] was supporting him-
 self as well as [his father] for an extended time, including
 through decision-making that would require sound mental
 capacity as well as caregiver responsibilities that would re-
 quire a reasonable amount of physical capability.” SAppx.
 21. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s finding, as it
 held that there was no clear error in how the Board
 weighed the evidence or a deficiency in its statement of rea-
 sons or bases. Decision at *4.
     In this appeal, Gonzalez primarily disputes the deter-
 mination that he was supporting himself as well as his fa-
 ther for an extended period of time. Specifically, Gonzalez
 contends that the Board and the Veterans Court ignored
 record evidence that his father was receiving a monthly in-
 come of $4,208.00 in veterans and social security benefits,
 which Gonzalez alleges was used to pay caregivers and
 cover expenses for both his father and himself. Appellant’s
 Br. at 5–9. Gonzalez argues that the Board disregarded
 such evidence and, instead, fabricated an unsupported sce-
 nario in which he was supporting himself as well as his fa-
 ther.
     However, Gonzalez is incorrect in asserting that the
 Board ignored evidence of his father’s monthly income from
 veterans and social security benefits. The Board explicitly
Case: 23-1347     Document: 28     Page: 5    Filed: 02/09/2024

 GONZALEZ v. MCDONOUGH                                       5

 discussed that evidence and Gonzalez’s accompanying ar-
 gument in its decision, stating that Gonzalez “further as-
 serted that he did not support himself or the Veteran and,
 instead, they used the Veteran’s military pension and VA
 disability benefits to pay caregivers and cover expenses.”
 SAppx. 20. The Board then weighed that evidence against
 witness testimony that demonstrated Gonzalez acted as his
 father’s caregiver before his death and concluded that Gon-
 zalez’s “activities as caregiver and surrogate or legal guard-
 ian for the Veteran who was 100 percent disabled would be
 consistent with being able to support himself despite phys-
 ical and mental defects, and his unemployment prior to age
 18 or afterwards was not due to such defects.” SAppx. 21.
     The Veterans Court arrived at the same conclusion,
 holding that “contrary to Mr. Gonzalez’s assertions, the
 Board addressed the evidence that he contends the Board
 overlooked.” Decision at *3–4. The court explicitly cited
 the Board’s discussion of Gonzalez’s father’s monthly in-
 come and Gonzalez’s role as caregiver, and it declined to
 reweigh that evidence on appeal. Id.
     Accordingly, Gonzalez’s primary contentions in this ap-
 peal are challenges to factual determinations regarding his
 capacity for self-support or challenges to DIC eligibility law
 as applied to the facts of his case.
      However, Gonzalez also facially asserts that the Veter-
 ans Court violated his constitutional right to due process
 by failing to apply the “reasonable doubt” (or “benefit-of-
 the-doubt”) doctrine. Appellant’s Br. at 3; Appellant’s Re-
 ply Br. at 9–10. Gonzalez provides no further explanation
 or support for that contention. Even if that argument was
 to rise above the level of conclusory, the Board’s assess-
 ment of reasonable doubt in this case is also an application
 of law to the facts of this case. The Veterans Court noted
 that the Board’s determination of reasonable doubt was
 properly based on an examination of the evidence regard-
 ing Gonzalez’s capability for self-support, thus involving
Case: 23-1347     Document: 28       Page: 6   Filed: 02/09/2024

 6                                    GONZALEZ v. MCDONOUGH

 the weighing of factual evidence. Decision at *4. Gonza-
 lez’s “due process” arguments are therefore constitutional
 in name only, and do not provide this court with a basis for
 finding jurisdiction. See Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332,
 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[The appellant’s] characterization
 of that question as constitutional in nature does not confer
 upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.”).
      Gonzalez thus has not raised any issue “with respect to
 the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule
 of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpreta-
 tion thereof (other than a determination as to a factual
 matter) that was relied on by the Court in making the de-
 cision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Accordingly, we do not pos-
 sess jurisdiction to decide this appeal.
                         CONCLUSION
     We have considered Gonzalez’s remaining arguments,
 but we find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons,
 we dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
                         DISMISSED
                             COSTS
 No costs.