Court Opinion

ID: 9371093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 16:01:43.611263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.780841
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-2368    Document: 55     Page: 1   Filed: 02/15/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                BRADLEY J. DONAGHUE,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2021-2368
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-496, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr.
                 ______________________

                Decided: February 15, 2023
                 ______________________

     MEGAN EILEEN HOFFMAN, Veterans Legal Advocacy
 Group, Arlington, VA, for claimant-appellant. Also repre-
 sented by HAROLD HAMILTON HOFFMAN, III.

     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, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN,
Case: 21-2368    Document: 55      Page: 2    Filed: 02/15/2023

 2                                  DONAGHUE   v. MCDONOUGH

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

     Before CHEN, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM
      Bradley Donaghue appeals the final decision of the
 United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims deny-
 ing his claim for service connection for an acquired psychi-
 atric disorder. Because Mr. Donaghue fails to raise
 arguments within the jurisdiction of our court, we dismiss
 for lack of jurisdiction.
                               I
     Mr. Donaghue served in the Air Force from August
 1995 to February 2000. While deployed, Mr. Donaghue
 stood an eighth of a mile away from a terrorist bombing in
 Saudi Arabia and was knocked unconscious after hitting
 his head on the tail cone of an F-16. He was evacuated to
 Isa Air Base in a civilian car. After the incident, Mr.
 Donaghue experienced anxiety when driving and periodic
 nightmares. He also reported becoming emotional when
 watching or listening to military-related content.
     He first sought behavioral health treatment from a pri-
 vate clinic in 2007, and later received treatment at the VA’s
 La Crosse Vet Center from 2014 to 2016. In December
 2016, he filed a claim for benefits for an acquired psychiat-
 ric disorder. A 2017 VA psychiatric examination deter-
 mined that he did not meet the diagnostic criteria for
 posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and instead diag-
 nosed an unspecified anxiety disorder unrelated to his mil-
 itary service. A month later, a VA regional office denied
 service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition.
    Mr. Donaghue filed a timely Notice of Disagreement
 and underwent another psychiatric examination in 2019.
 The 2019 examination found that Mr. Donaghue did not
Case: 21-2368    Document: 55      Page: 3    Filed: 02/15/2023

 DONAGHUE   v. MCDONOUGH                                    3

 meet the diagnostic criteria for any mental disorder includ-
 ing PTSD. The VA regional office denied benefits for an ac-
 quired psychiatric disorder for lacking a PTSD diagnosis
 and a nexus to service for anxiety disorder. Mr. Donaghue
 appealed the rejection of a PTSD diagnosis to the Board.
     In 2019, the Board denied service connection for an ac-
 quired psychiatric disorder. The Board found the 2017 and
 2019 VA medical examinations to be “competent and pro-
 bative evidence. . . . [and that] the examiner[s] supported
 their conclusions as to the lack of a PTSD diagnosis with a
 thorough and cogent rationale, which included considera-
 tion of the DSM-5, the Veteran’s statements, and his clini-
 cal history.” J.A. 134. The Veterans Court affirmed.
 Mr. Donaghue 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).
                              A
     Mr. Donaghue argues that the Board relied on inade-
 quate medical determinations because the VA examina-
 tions ignored his medical history and disregarded
 inconsistencies between the examinations. He makes a
 number of fact-based arguments. For instance, he suggests
 that the 2017 VA examination relied on an inaccurate fac-
 tual premise that he did not experience a traumatic event.
 He also underscores that the 2017 examination diagnosed
 an unspecified anxiety disorder, while the 2019 examina-
 tion did not result in a diagnosis of any mental disorder
 including PTSD. The Veterans Court reviewed these exam-
 inations in the context of reviewing the Board’s decision.
Case: 21-2368    Document: 55      Page: 4    Filed: 02/15/2023

 4                                  DONAGHUE   v. MCDONOUGH

 And the court explained in detail why it found the exami-
 nations adequate and consistent. J.A. 4–7. Specifically, the
 Board found “credible evidence that the Veteran was ex-
 posed to traumatic events,” but no finding of compensable
 diagnosis. J.A. 5.
     Mr. Donaghue’s arguments as to the sufficiency of the
 medical examination are beyond our jurisdiction, as they
 simply challenge the factual determinations made by the
 Board and the Veterans Court’s application of law to fact
 when approving the Board’s determinations. Although Mr.
 Donaghue asserts, without support, that these alleged in-
 adequacies pose “pure legal errors,” Appellant’s Br. 19, we
 have repeatedly held that “the sufficiency of a medical
 opinion is a matter beyond our jurisdictional reach, be-
 cause the underlying question is one of fact.” Prinkey v.
 Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (listing dis-
 missed cases arguing the sufficiency of medical opinions for
 want of jurisdiction).
                              B
     Mr. Donaghue next argues that the Veterans Court
 erred by affirming the Board’s statutory violation in not
 seeking relevant private records related to his PTSD claim.
 See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(1) (requiring VA to make “reason-
 able efforts to obtain relevant private records that claimant
 adequately identifies to [VA]”). During the 2017 examina-
 tion, Mr. Donaghue reported meeting with a private coun-
 selor for two to three months in 2007. But the Board did
 not seek Mr. Donaghue’s private medical records.
     Mr. Donaghue admits that this argument was not
 raised below. Appellant’s Br. 41. Moreover, we find that
 Mr. Donaghue forfeited this argument when he affirma-
 tively argued at the Veterans Court that the Board failed
 to obtain private records related to his bilateral knee
 claims, J.A. 106–08, yet did not make the same argument
 with respect to his PTSD claim. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428
 U.S. 106, 120 (1976). Mr. Donaghue nonetheless argues
Case: 21-2368    Document: 55       Page: 5   Filed: 02/15/2023

 DONAGHUE    v. MCDONOUGH                                   5

 that we should still consider the argument, because the
 Veterans Court reviewed the 2017 examination discussing
 the records at issue. We have consistently declined to con-
 sider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, and we
 again decline to do so here.
                             III
     Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments
 raised on appeal, we dismiss.
                       DISMISSED
                            COSTS

 No costs.