Court Opinion

ID: 9377295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 16:01:05.956549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.365650
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1198   Document: 43     Page: 1   Filed: 03/07/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                NORMAN B. JOHNSON,
                  Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

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

                       2022-1198
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 19-7673, Judge Grant Jaquith.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: March 7, 2023
                 ______________________

     DANIEL ROBERTS, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA, ar-
 gued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by AMANDA
 K. ANTONS, Chicago, IL; KATHERINE A. HELM, New York,
 NY.

     TANYA KOENIG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented
 by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; JULIE HONAN, Y. KEN LEE, Office of General
Case: 22-1198    Document: 43     Page: 2    Filed: 03/07/2023

 2                                   JOHNSON   v. MCDONOUGH

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

  Before LOURIE, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
     Norman B. Johnson appeals from a decision of the
 United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Vet-
 erans Court”) affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ de-
 nial of service connection for pes planus (flat feet). See
 Johnson v. McDonough, No. 19-7673, 2021 WL 2170817
 (Vet. App. May 28, 2021) (Decision). Because we lack juris-
 diction to review the issues raised in Mr. Johnson’s appeal,
 we dismiss.
                        BACKGROUND
      Mr. Johnson served in the United States Marine Corps
 from July 1980 to July 1984 and then again from Septem-
 ber 1984 to November 1991, when he was honorably dis-
 charged. J.A. 1462. Much of Mr. Johnson’s treatment
 records from his time in service are illegible. J.A.
 804–1104. One record, from February 27, 1981, includes
 notations that appear to read “pes planus,” “fit for orthot-
 ics,” and “flat feet all life.” J.A. 887–88. Another record
 describing a physical examination on August 24, 1983, also
 notes pes planus. J.A. 1426 (June 2012 Department of Vet-
 erans Affairs (“VA”) examination request summarizing Mr.
 Johnson’s service treatment records).
     In 2012, Mr. Johnson filed a service connection claim
 for a “bilateral foot condition,” pes planus. J.A. 1439. The
 Regional Office requested a medical examination of Mr.
 Johnson, asking the examiner “[w]as the Veteran’s bilat-
 eral pes planus, which existed prior to service according to
 the Veteran, aggravated beyond its natural progression by
 military service?” J.A. 1425–27. The examiner reviewed
 Mr. Johnson’s medical record and examined him on July
Case: 22-1198    Document: 43      Page: 3    Filed: 03/07/2023

 JOHNSON   v. MCDONOUGH                                     3

 27, 2012. J.A. 1421. The examiner found that Mr. Johnson
 had pain in both feet and that his condition impacted his
 ability to work, among other findings. J.A. 1412–17. Spe-
 cifically, the examiner stated “pt can not [sic] con-
 tin[u]ously stand more than 3 hours because this causes
 pain.” J.A. 1417. The examiner checked a box on the Com-
 pensation and Pension Exam Report indicating that “[t]he
 claimed condition, which clearly and unmistakably existed
 prior to service, was clearly and unmistakably not aggra-
 vated beyond its natural progression by an in-service in-
 jury, event, or illness.” J.A. 1420. The examiner explained:
 “[I] base th[i]s on the patient[’]s lack of documentation of
 seeking treatment in the military and sinc[e] his discharge
 from the military. I also base this that pt has no charac-
 teristic calluses second[a]ry to functional or structural
 eti[o]logies, no dysfu[n]ction of posterior tibialis and no
 sign[i]ficant arthritic changes.” Id.
     The Regional Office denied Mr. Johnson’s service con-
 nection claim. J.A. 1169–73. Mr. Johnson appealed to the
 Board of Veterans’ Appeals. J.A. 1123–26. He submitted
 three statements concerning conditions he experienced
 during service that he felt aggravated his pes planus. J.A.
 1123–26; J.A. 613–15; J.A. 102–04.
     In a July 2013 statement, Mr. Johnson described rigor-
 ous training and activities including miles of running on
 hard surfaces and sand, forced marches with a heavy pack,
 rappelling, spy rigging, and physical training conducted on
 the steel flight decks of ships. J.A. 1123–24. He stated that
 he told his physician about his pain while in service in 1981
 but was never issued orthotics or special shoes to alleviate
 his pain. J.A. 1124. He attributed the lack of documenta-
 tion of complaints related to pes planus in his service med-
 ical record to his involuntary separation in 1991, stating
 that he was not offered a separation physical, pre-separa-
 tion counseling, or the opportunity to submit a disability
 claim before his 1991 discharge. J.A. 1123, 1125–26.
Case: 22-1198    Document: 43      Page: 4    Filed: 03/07/2023

 4                                    JOHNSON   v. MCDONOUGH

     In October 2016, Mr. Johnson submitted a second
 statement restating the strenuous activities he had per-
 formed during service. J.A. 613. In addition to the training
 and activities already described, he stated that he per-
 formed remedial physical therapy for weight gain, which
 exacerbated his foot condition. J.A. 613–14. He added that
 the atmosphere during his service encouraged service
 members to “[s]uck it [u]p,” in other words, not complain of
 their ailments. J.A. 613.
     In December 2016, Mr. Johnson submitted a third
 statement. J.A. 102–04. This statement largely reiterated
 the facts recited in the previous two statements. Id. Mr.
 Johnson added that he was not found to have flat feet when
 he was examined by a doctor during his military entrance
 processing, and that, had he had flat feet at that time, he
 would not have been permitted to join or rejoin the Marine
 Corps. J.A. 103.
     The Board denied Mr. Johnson’s service connection
 claim for pes planus. J.A. 18. It found that the evidence
 showed that Mr. Johnson’s pes planus pre-existed his en-
 listment and did not increase in disability beyond its natu-
 ral progression during his service. J.A. 18.
     Mr. Johnson appealed to the Veterans Court, which af-
 firmed. Decision at *5. It found clear and unmistakable
 evidence that Mr. Johnson’s pes planus disability predated
 his enlistment in his 1981 admission of “flat feet all life.”
 Id. at *3. The Veterans Court also found clear and unmis-
 takable evidence that Mr. Johnson’s pes planus disability
 was not aggravated beyond its natural progression during
 service. Id. at *3–4. The Veterans Court considered Mr.
 Johnson’s lay statements and found that his description of
 rigorous activities during service “conflates risk factors
 with actual aggravation.” Id. at *4.
     Mr. Johnson timely appealed to this court.
Case: 22-1198     Document: 43     Page: 5    Filed: 03/07/2023

 JOHNSON   v. MCDONOUGH                                      5

                          DISCUSSION
     Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
 Court comes from 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Our jurisdiction under
 that section is limited. We have jurisdiction to review “all
 relevant questions of law,” but lack jurisdiction to review
 “a challenge to a factual determination,” or “a challenge to
 a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular
 case,” except to the extent that those challenges raise a con-
 stitutional issue. § 7292(d).
     Mr. Johnson purports to challenge three issues of law
 in his appeal to this court. But his challenges, at heart, all
 pertain to factual issues or the application of law to fact.
 We therefore lack jurisdiction to address Mr. Johnson’s ar-
 guments under § 7292(d).
     First, Mr. Johnson argues that the Veterans Court
 erred by failing to determine that the VA violated its stat-
 utory duty to assist under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A by not provid-
 ing him with an adequate medical examination and opinion
 necessary to decide his claim. Appellant’s Br. 10, 14–20.
 He argues that the 2012 medical examination was inade-
 quate because the medical examiner failed to consider his
 lay statements; the medical examination was rushed; and
 the resulting report flawed. Id. This argument does not
 raise issues falling within our limited jurisdiction under
 § 7292(d).
      Under § 5103A(d), the VA is required to provide a med-
 ical examination in certain cases. But the adequacy of any
 such examination is an issue of fact, which we lack juris-
 diction to review. Prinkey v. Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375,
 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding that we lack jurisdiction
 to judge the sufficiency of a medical opinion and collecting
 non-precedential cases in which we have held the same).
    Mr. Johnson’s citations to Veterans Court cases re-
 manding Board decisions based on flaws in the underlying
 medical examination, such as Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App.
Case: 22-1198    Document: 43     Page: 6    Filed: 03/07/2023

 6                                   JOHNSON   v. MCDONOUGH

 249 (2020); and Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1 (2001),
 are unavailing. See Appellant’s Br. 15, 18–19. The Veter-
 ans Court’s jurisdiction, governed by 38 U.S.C. § 7252 and
 § 7261, is broader than our own, which is governed by 38
 U.S.C. § 7292. That the Veterans Court has the power to
 remand to remedy inadequacies in a medical examination
 does not imply that we have that same power. See Prinkey
 735 F.3d at 1383 (explaining that the Veterans Court acts
 “as the sole appellate judge of medical evidence (except
 where a constitutional issue is before this court)” and that
 if we were to review the sufficiency of a medical examina-
 tion it would “turn the jurisdictional order set by Congress
 in 1988 on its head”).
     Second, Mr. Johnson argues that the Veterans Court
 misapplied relevant statutes—namely 38 U.S.C.
 § 7104(d)(1) and § 1154(b)—in such a way as to permit the
 Board to disregard his lay statements. Appellant’s Br. 11,
 14–20. This argument presents an issue of fact which we
 lack jurisdiction to review.
      The Board considered lay evidence, but it did not give
 that lay evidence the weight that Mr. Johnson believes it
 should have. See J.A. 26 (discussing Mr. Johnson’s July
 2013 statement); see also J.A. 19 (“The Board has thor-
 oughly reviewed all the evidence in the Veteran’s claims
 file.”). Similarly, the Veterans Court considered lay evi-
 dence but determined that Mr. Johnson’s lay statements
 pertained to “risk factors for aggravation” rather than “ac-
 tual aggravation.” Decision at *4. That is, the Board and
 Veterans Court did not disregard Mr. Johnson’s lay state-
 ments as he alleges. Rather, the Board and Veterans Court
 gave Mr. Johnson’s lay statements less probative value
 than Mr. Johnson believes they should have. The probative
 value given to evidence is a factual determination beyond
 our jurisdiction. Goodman v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d 1383, 1386
 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Case: 22-1198     Document: 43     Page: 7    Filed: 03/07/2023

 JOHNSON   v. MCDONOUGH                                      7

       Mr. Johnson’s citations to cases in which we have ex-
 plained the role that lay evidence plays in disability benefit
 determinations are not to the contrary. For example, in
 Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007), we
 addressed a legal issue—whether, as the Veterans Court
 held, “competent medical evidence is required” when “the
 determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a
 medical diagnosis.” Id. at 1374, 1376–77. We held that
 “[l]ay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish
 a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent
 to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is re-
 porting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay
 testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a
 later diagnosis by a medical professional.” Id. at 1377 (foot-
 note omitted). Here, unlike in Jandreau, the Board and
 Veterans Court permitted lay evidence and did not an-
 nounce, as a matter of law, that lay evidence could never
 show service connection under these circumstances. The
 Veterans Court reviewed the lay evidence and determined
 that it showed that Mr. Johnson had experienced risk fac-
 tors for further pes planus disability, but that it did not
 show actual aggravation. Decision at *4. The Veterans
 Court concluded that Mr. Johnson’s lay evidence was out-
 weighed by the uncontroverted medical evidence that Mr.
 Johnson’s pes planus was not aggravated beyond its natu-
 ral progression during service. Id. This determination is a
 factual determination that we lack jurisdiction to review.
 See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 (“Whether lay evidence is
 competent and sufficient in a particular case is a fact issue
 . . . rather than a legal issue . . . .”).
     Third, Mr. Johnson argues that the Veterans Court
 misapplied the presumption of soundness under 38 U.S.C.
 § 1111. Appellant’s Br. 13, 20–23. Under the presumption
 of soundness in 38 U.S.C. § 1111, “every veteran shall be
 taken to have been in sound condition when examined, ac-
 cepted, and enrolled for service, except as to defects, infir-
 mities, or disorders noted at the time of the examination,
Case: 22-1198    Document: 43      Page: 8    Filed: 03/07/2023

 8                                    JOHNSON   v. MCDONOUGH

 acceptance, and enrollment, or where clear and unmistak-
 able evidence demonstrates that the injury or disease ex-
 isted before acceptance and enrollment and was not
 aggravated by such service.” To rebut this presumption,
 the VA must show clear and unmistakable evidence of a
 preexisting condition and of a lack of aggravation during
 service. Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089, 1095–96 (Fed.
 Cir. 2004). Mr. Johnson asserts that the evidence relied on
 by the Veterans Court to show a preexisting condition—the
 1981 admission of “flat feet all life”—“says nothing about
 any morbidity arising therefrom prior to service, or any
 reason why Mr. Johnson was not entitled to a presumption
 of soundness upon entry into the Marine Corps.” Appel-
 lant’s Br. 21. Mr. Johnson further argues that, even if
 there were clear and unmistakable evidence showing
 preexisting pes planus, the Veterans Court further erred
 by finding clear and unmistakable evidence of no aggrava-
 tion during service. Id. at 22. Mr. Johnson contends that
 the 2012 medical opinion does not provide clear and unmis-
 takable evidence rebutting the presumption of aggrava-
 tion. Id.
     Once again, Mr. Johnson’s arguments are purely fac-
 tual in nature. He argues that the Board and the Veterans
 Court gave the 1981 record of “flat feet all life,” J.A. 888,
 and the 2012 medical opinion, J.A. 1411–24, the wrong pro-
 bative value. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 10–13, 21–23. The
 Veterans Court applied the correct standards here regard-
 ing evidence that Mr. Johnson was not sound at his entry
 to the Marine Corps—which it did through his 1981 admis-
 sion of “flat feet all life”—and evidence that Mr. Johnson’s
 pes planus condition was not aggravated during service—
 which it did through the 2012 medical examination report.
 Decision at *4–5. We lack jurisdiction to review the VA’s
 underlying factual findings. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d).
Case: 22-1198     Document: 43     Page: 9   Filed: 03/07/2023

 JOHNSON    v. MCDONOUGH                                   9

                       CONCLUSION
    We have considered Mr. Johnson’s remaining argu-
 ments and conclude that we lack jurisdiction. For the rea-
 sons discussed above, we dismiss Mr. Johnson’s appeal.
                       DISMISSED
                           COSTS
No costs.