Court Opinion

ID: 9410046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 13:00:54.55597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:55.192167
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1746    Document: 45     Page: 1   Filed: 07/18/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                STANLEY W. VALENTINE,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2022-1746
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 21-0217, Chief Judge Margaret C.
 Bartley.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: July 18, 2023
                  ______________________

    THOMAS JOHN KNIFFEN, I, Law Office of Thomas J.
 Kniffen, Vestal, NY, for claimant-appellant.

     ERIC JOHN SINGLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; EVAN SCOTT GRANT, Y. KEN LEE, Office of
Case: 22-1746     Document: 45     Page: 2    Filed: 07/18/2023

 2                                  VALENTINE   v. MCDONOUGH

 General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
 Affairs, Washington, DC.
                  ______________________

     Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Stanley Valentine appeals the final decision of the
 United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims deny-
 ing a rating higher than 10 percent for disability of his
 right long finger. Because he fails to raise arguments
 within the jurisdiction of our court, we dismiss for lack of
 jurisdiction.
                               I
     Mr. Valentine served in the United States Marine
 Corps from December 1974 to December 1978 and in the
 United States Army from April 1979 to January 1988. In
 1989, a VA regional office (RO) awarded Mr. Valentine ser-
 vice connection for cellulitis of the right hand and assigned
 a 10 percent disability rating. In 1994, Mr. Valentine
 sought an increased rating, which was denied by the RO
 that same year and later by the Board in 1997. In Novem-
 ber 2008, he again applied for an increased rating, but the
 RO denied a rating higher than 10 percent. He then filed a
 notice of disagreement with the RO’s decision. In August
 2015, the Board remanded the claim for further factual de-
 velopment, including a VA examination. After reviewing
 the VA examination records, the Board denied his request
 for a higher rating.
      Mr. Valentine appealed to the Veterans Court, and in
 February 2019 the parties submitted a joint motion for par-
 tial remand of the Board’s decision. The parties agreed that
 the Board erred by failing to address evidence indicating
 that Mr. Valentine experienced “functional impact from
 pain” on his right long finger. In August 2019, the Board
 remanded the claim for a new VA examination.
Case: 22-1746    Document: 45      Page: 3    Filed: 07/18/2023

 VALENTINE   v. MCDONOUGH                                   3

 Mr. Valentine underwent additional VA examinations in
 December 2019 and September 2020, and he was diag-
 nosed with degenerative arthritis and degenerative
 changes of the metacarpophalangeal joint with limitation
 of motion in his right long finger. While both examiners
 acknowledged that he experienced functional limitation in
 his right long finger, they concluded that “[his] functional
 impairment was not so diminished that no effective func-
 tion remains other than [what] would be equally well
 served by an amputation with prothesis.” J.A. 3.
     In December 2020, the Board denied a rating higher
 than 10 percent for his right long finger disability. The
 Board rated his disability under Diagnostic Code (DC)
 5010-5229 (post-traumatic arthritis; limitation of motion of
 the index or long finger). The Board considered evaluations
 under other DCs, including DC 5154 (amputation of the
 long finger), but determined that none satisfied the criteria
 for an evaluation higher than 10 percent. The Board con-
 cluded that “as demonstrated by the probative evidence of
 record, including medical and lay evidence of record, [Mr.
 Valentine] retains right long finger mobility and there is
 no evidence of functional impairment comparable to ampu-
 tation.” J.A. 13 (emphasis added).
      Mr. Valentine appealed to the Veterans Court, primar-
 ily arguing that the Board erred by adding a comparable to
 amputation criteria to DC 5154. He contended that he was
 prejudiced by the Board’s assessment of his right finger
 disability under the “comparable to amputation” criteria in
 the first instance without remand to the RO. The Veterans
 Court affirmed the Board’s denial of a higher rating, reject-
 ing his contention that “the Board’s assessment of the vet-
 eran’s right long finger symptoms under the DC 5154
 criteria, an assessment facilitated by the terms ‘compara-
 ble to,’ constituted an unsupported medical conclusion or
 otherwise modified the rating schedule.” J.A. 6. The Veter-
 ans Court concluded that he “failed to demonstrate that the
 Board committed prejudicial error in denying an increased
Case: 22-1746    Document: 45       Page: 4   Filed: 07/18/2023

 4                                  VALENTINE   v. MCDONOUGH

 evaluation.” J.A. 4–5 (citing Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S.
 396, 409 (2009)).
     Mr. Valentine appeals.
                              II
      We review de novo the Veterans Court’s interpretation
 of law. Bazalo v. West, 150 F.3d 1380, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
 Unless an appeal from the Veterans Court decision pre-
 sents a constitutional issue, this Court may not review “a
 challenge to a factual determination,” or “a challenge to a
 law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular
 case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)(A)–(B).
                              III
     Section 7261(b)(2) requires the Veterans Court to “take
 due account of the rule of prejudicial error.” Mr. Valentine
 argues that the Veterans Court misinterpreted 38 U.S.C.
 § 7261(b)(2) when it concluded that the Board did not com-
 mit prejudicial error in denying an increased rating. But
 Mr. Valentine does not explain how the Veterans Court
 misinterpreted § 7261(b)(2). Instead, he argues that the
 Veterans Court erred as a matter of law merely by not find-
 ing prejudicial error in the Board’s decision. He does not
 allege that the Veterans Court relied on an incorrect legal
 standard for assessing prejudicial error, nor does he pre-
 sent any argument on what the correct interpretation of
 § 7261(b)(2) should be.
     Mr. Valentine argues that the Board committed preju-
 dicial error by evaluating his disability under newly added
 criteria, “comparable to amputation,” in the first instance
 without remand to the RO. Under his reasoning, the Vet-
 erans Court failed to take due account of the Board’s prej-
 udicial error under § 7261(b)(2) when it held that the words
 “comparable to amputation” did not modify the rating
 schedule. That argument does not challenge a legal inter-
 pretation, though, but rather the application of the
Case: 22-1746     Document: 45      Page: 5    Filed: 07/18/2023

 VALENTINE   v. MCDONOUGH                                     5

 prejudicial error rule to the facts of this case. Thus, we lack
 jurisdiction.
     The rating schedule explicitly permits the Board to
 rate disabilities by analogy by selecting a DC for a closely
 related disease, injury, or residual condition. 38 C.F.R.
 § 4.20. When the Board stated that Mr. Valentine did not
 have “functional impairment comparable to amputation,”
 J.A. 13, the Board did not modify DC 5154 criteria. Rather,
 it made a factual determination that his disability does not
 qualify for a rating under DC 5154 by analogy because
 “[his] functional impairment was not so diminished that no
 effective function remained other than what would be
 equally well served by an amputation with prothesis.” J.A.
 3. Since his right long finger is not amputated, rating by
 analogy was the only way the Board could assess the ap-
 plicability of DC 5154 to his case. Based on its review of
 Mr. Valentine’s medical history and reports, the Board
 found, and the Veterans Court affirmed, that his disability
 does not qualify for a rating under DC 5154 because “the
 evidence does not show amputation of [his] right long fin-
 ger or its functional equivalent.” J.A. 6. We lack jurisdic-
 tion to review those determinations.
      Nor can we review the Board’s alleged failure here to
 remand his claim to the RO because he provides no basis
 for finding that he was entitled to remand as a matter of
 law. Mr. Valentine cites 38 C.F.R. § 20.904 as the sole au-
 thority for his contention that the Board was legally obli-
 gated to remand his claim to the RO. Section 20.904
 requires the Board to remand the case to the RO only when
 “further evidence, clarification of the evidence, correction
 of a procedural defect, or any other action is essential for a
 proper appellate decision.” 38 C.F.R. § 20.904(a). He does
 not explain why § 20.904 requires the Board to remand to
 the RO in his case; nor point to any missing evidence or
 action that was “essential for a proper appellate decision.”
 And so, he raises no legal issue regarding § 20.904 within
 our jurisdiction to decide.
Case: 22-1746    Document: 45       Page: 6   Filed: 07/18/2023

 6                                  VALENTINE   v. MCDONOUGH

     Here, the Veterans Court “carefully reviewed the rec-
 ord evidence,” including the degree of functional impair-
 ment of Mr. Valentine’s right long finger, but was “not
 persuaded that the Board failed to consider any relevant
 provisions of law or regulation.” J.A. 6. Because we find
 none of Mr. Valentine’s arguments raise a legal issue
 within our jurisdiction, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
                              IV
     Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments
 raised on appeal, we dismiss.
                        DISMISSED
                            COSTS
 No costs.