Court Opinion

ID: 9881828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 14:00:57.626377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:12.654967
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1876    Document: 20     Page: 1   Filed: 10/04/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   GROVER MARTIN,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2023-1876
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 22-1669, Judge William S. Green-
 berg.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: October 4, 2023
                 ______________________

    GROVER MARTIN, Biloxi, MS, pro se.

     MATTHEW PAUL ROCHE, 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; JONATHAN KRISCH, Y. KEN LEE, Office of Gen-
 eral Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Af-
 fairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 23-1876     Document: 20      Page: 2    Filed: 10/04/2023

 2                                      MARTIN v. MCDONOUGH

                   ______________________

     Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Grover Martin appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of
 Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming
 the denial by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) of
 service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Be-
 cause Mr. Martin’s appeal raises only issues outside this
 court’s jurisdiction, we dismiss.
                         BACKGROUND
     Mr. Martin served on active duty in the U.S. Army from
 January 1988 to April 1990. In June 1989, Mr. Martin’s
 commanding officer referred him for a mental health eval-
 uation. Based on that evaluation, Mr. Martin was diag-
 nosed with Axis I alcohol dependence with occupation
 problems, a personality disorder not otherwise specified
 (“NOS”), and a mixed personality disorder with narcissistic
 and immature features. The evaluating psychologist ex-
 plained that “[t]he alcohol problem can be treated in the
 Army, however the Personality Disorder is a long standing
 pattern of behavior and not amenable to short term ther-
 apy.” SApp’x 35. 1 The psychologist advised that the per-
 sonality disorder diagnosis “supports an administrative
 separation.” SApp’x 35.
     In March 1990, a separation examination found Mr.
 Martin to be “psychiatrically normal.” SApp’x 4. In April
 1990, Mr. Martin separated from service with an honorable
 discharge based on alcohol rehabilitation failure.
     Mr. Martin first applied for disability benefits for a psy-
 chiatric condition in August 1997. After denial of service

     1  “SApp’x” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
 with the government’s informal response brief.
Case: 23-1876    Document: 20      Page: 3    Filed: 10/04/2023

 MARTIN v. MCDONOUGH                                        3

 connection in November 1997 and January 1998, Mr. Mar-
 tin requested that his application for disability benefits be
 reopened in June 2007. The VA regional office denied his
 June 2007 claim. However, in 2011, the Board reopened
 Mr. Martin’s claim and remanded his case to the VA re-
 gional office to obtain VA treatment records and schedule
 a new examination.
      In 2013, Mr. Martin underwent a VA mental health
 evaluation. The examiner concluded that it is “less likely
 as not that [Mr. Martin’s] current psychotic disorder ha[d]
 its onset in service,” or that the disorder “was aggravated
 by service or is otherwise related to service.” SApp’x 45.
 Based on that 2013 medical opinion, in 2016 the Board de-
 nied Mr. Martin’s claim. In 2020, the Veterans Court set
 aside the Board’s decision for failure “to provide an ade-
 quate statement of reasons or bases for relying on the Au-
 gust 2013 VA examination.” SApp’x 6. On remand, Mr.
 Martin underwent a new medical examination in July 2021
 and was afforded a VA addendum medical opinion in Sep-
 tember 2021 “in which the examiner opined that during
 service or currently the appellant did not have any [ac-
 quired psychiatric disorder (“APD”)] that had its onset in
 service or was otherwise related to service.” SApp’x 6. In
 March 2022, the Board again denied the claim. SApp’x 15.
     On April 28, 2023, the Veterans Court affirmed, deter-
 mining that Mr. Martin had not shown that “the Board
 erred in denying service connection for an APD.” SApp’x 6.
 The Veterans Court considered Mr. Martin’s argument
 that the Board made its decision based on medical records
 with incorrect identification numbers but concluded that
 “[d]espite the appellant’s observation that there are minor
 discrepancies with his rank and identification number in a
 few records, the appellant has failed to identify a Board er-
 ror because there is no suggestion that the records relied
 on by the Board were not the appellant’s.” SApp’x 7.
 Mr. Martin appeals.
Case: 23-1876    Document: 20      Page: 4    Filed: 10/04/2023

 4                                     MARTIN v. MCDONOUGH

                         DISCUSSION
     This court has limited jurisdiction to review Veterans
 Court decisions. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We may review ques-
 tions of law, such as the interpretation of a statute or reg-
 ulation relied upon by the Veterans Court in issuing its
 decision. Id. § 7292(a). “However, except with respect to
 constitutional issues, we may not review challenges to fac-
 tual determinations or challenges to the application of a
 law or regulation to the facts of a case.” Cavaciuti v.
 McDonough, 75 F.4th 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing 38
 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)).
     Mr. Martin argues that the medical records related to
 his discharge from service are fraudulent and that the Vet-
 erans Court “failed to acknowledge the fraudulent medical
 records.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 4. Specifically, he ar-
 gues that the identification numbers listed on some of the
 medical records related to his discharge do not match his
 social security number. He asserts that “[n]one of the per-
 sonality disorders in the [service medical record] has the
 appellant[’s] identification number.” Id. at 5. For this rea-
 son, he argues that his “personality disorder is clearly
 fraud,” id., that he was “unlawfully and unjust[ly] sepa-
 rated from the US Army,” id. at 6, and that “[f]raud can’t
 be the reason and bas[is] for separation or denying service
 connected disability benefits,” id. In support of these
 points, Mr. Martin raises 38 U.S.C. § 6103(a), Executive
 Order 9397, and Pub. L. No. 93-579, sec. 7(B), 88 Stat. 1896
 (1974). Id. at 3–5.
     We lack jurisdiction over the allegations raised in Mr.
 Martin’s appeal. Mr. Martin disputes whether certain of
 his medical records, which the Board relied on in issuing
 its decision, contain the correct social security number.
 This presents a factual question about the accuracy of the
 records and the Board’s reliance on that evidence. We are
 unable to consider these factual questions on appeal. King
 v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Case: 23-1876     Document: 20      Page: 5   Filed: 10/04/2023

 MARTIN v. MCDONOUGH                                         5

 (explaining that “[a]bsent a constitutional issue, this court
 is precluded from reviewing challenges to factual determi-
 nations or challenges to an application of law to fact” and
 “[b]ecause [claimant] only challenges the evaluation and
 weighing of evidence, this court lacks jurisdiction over this
 appeal.”). Therefore, we are unable to consider Mr. Mar-
 tin’s arguments regarding incorrect identification num-
 bers.
     Additionally, although we acknowledge the statutes
 and other authorities Mr. Martin cites, they do not create
 a legal issue that we may review. We may review a deci-
 sion of the Veterans Court when that decision is based on
 an interpretation of a statute, regulation, or rule of law. 38
 U.S.C. § 7292. Here, however, when the Veterans Court’s
 decision considered whether the Board erred in denying
 Mr. Martin’s service-connection claim, it did not consider
 or interpret 38 U.S.C. § 6103(a), Executive Order 9397, or
 Public Law No. 93-579, as cited by Mr. Martin, and there-
 fore the Veterans Court’s decision was not based on those
 provisions. Mr. Martin has not explained why the Veter-
 ans Court should have applied these provisions or how con-
 sideration of these provisions would have changed the
 Veterans Court’s decision. We conclude that the cited pro-
 visions do not raise a reviewable legal issue in this case.
                         CONCLUSION
     We have considered Mr. Martin’s arguments and deter-
 mine we lack jurisdiction over his appeal. For the foregoing
 reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
                        DISMISSED
                            COSTS
 No costs.