Court Opinion

ID: 9907887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 16:01:34.861171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:04:18.232050
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1575    Document: 24     Page: 1   Filed: 12/07/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                FRANKLYN M. SOODEEN,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2023-1575
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 21-7123, Judge William S. Green-
 berg.
                 ______________________

                Decided: December 7, 2023
                 ______________________

    FRANKLYN M. SOODEEN, Kew Gardens, NY, pro se.

      ERIC JOHN SINGLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN B. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; BENJAMIN ISAAC HERSKOVITZ, Y. KEN LEE, Of-
 fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet-
 erans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 23-1575    Document: 24     Page: 2    Filed: 12/07/2023

 2                                   SOODEEN v. MCDONOUGH

                  ______________________

 Before TARANTO, CHEN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
      Franklyn M. Soodeen served in the United States
 Army from 1968 to 1970. In 2021, he applied to the De-
 partment of Veterans Affairs for disability benefits, claim-
 ing entitlement based on a back condition he said was
 connected to his service—specifically, to an accident he
 said occurred before his discharge. The relevant regional
 office of the Department and then the Board of Veterans’
 Appeals rejected the assertion that the back condition was
 service-connected and therefore denied the claim for bene-
 fits. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
 Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed the Board’s decision.
 Soodeen v. McDonough, No. 21-7123, 2022 WL 17985187
 (Vet. App. Dec. 29, 2022). Mr. Soodeen appeals.
     Mr. Soodeen challenges the Veterans Court’s affir-
 mance of the Board’s decision for three reasons. First, he
 argues that the Board erred by giving the existing contem-
 poraneous evidence in his service files more weight than
 his present testimony. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 2–3;
 SAppx. 10–11. 1 Second, he asserts that more service rec-
 ords must exist than those which were supplied to the De-
 partment for consideration of this matter, thus disputing
 the Board’s finding that “[t]here is no indication that any
 other military records remain outstanding.” SAppx. 10;
 Appellant’s Informal Br. at 2–3. Third, he argues that the
 Board, which cited 38 U.S.C. § 5107, did not properly apply
 the benefit-of-the-doubt rule of § 5107(b) when weighing
 the record evidence. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 3; SAppx.
 7.

     1   “SAppx.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
 by the Secretary in this court with its brief as appellee.
Case: 23-1575    Document: 24      Page: 3     Filed: 12/07/2023

 SOODEEN v. MCDONOUGH                                        3

     We lack the authority to review Mr. Soodeen’s appeal.
 Mr. Soodeen challenges only the Veterans Court’s affir-
 mance of the Board’s factual determinations and the
 Board’s application of law to facts, and he neither raises a
 constitutional issue nor identifies a legal issue decided by
 the Veterans Court. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 1–2 (Mr.
 Soodeen’s statement that the Veterans Court’s decision did
 not “involve the validity or interpretation of a statute or
 regulation” and did not “decide constitutional issues”). The
 relevant statute defining our jurisdiction declares that,
 when no constitutional issue is presented, we “may not re-
 view . . . 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). That bar applies
 to preclude review of the challenge to the weighing of evi-
 dence. See Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
 2000) (“The weighing of this [record] evidence is not within
 our appellate jurisdiction.”). It applies as well to preclude
 review of the challenge to the application of the benefit-of-
 the-doubt rule of § 5107(b). See Ferguson v. Principi, 273
 F.3d 1072, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he Board . . . deter-
 mined that the requirement that there be ‘an approximate
 balance of positive and negative evidence’ was not met,
 meaning § 5107(b) was not applicable. This involves no in-
 terpretation of the statute. . . . Thus, under subsection
 (d)(2) this court does not have jurisdiction over the ap-
 peal.”).
      Because we do not have the authority to review Mr.
 Soodeen’s challenges to the Veterans Court’s decision, we
 must dismiss Mr. Soodeen’s appeal for lack of subject-mat-
 ter jurisdiction.
     The parties shall bear their own costs.
                        DISMISSED