Court Opinion

ID: 9946227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 16:03:06.51595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:31.677554
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2199    Document: 12    Page: 1     Filed: 02/08/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                RICHARD M. O'CONNELL,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

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

                        2023-2199
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 22-477, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
 dith.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: February 8, 2024
                  ______________________

    RICHARD M. O'CONNELL, Farmington Hills, MI, pro se.

     JOSHUA MOORE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office
 of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
 Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 23-2199    Document: 12      Page: 2    Filed: 02/08/2024

 2                                  O'CONNELL v. MCDONOUGH

                  ______________________

     Before DYK, CLEVENGER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Richard M. O’Connell appeals a decision of the United
 States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) af-
 firming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
 (Board) denying a rating for gastroesophageal reflux dis-
 ease (GERD) with Barrett’s esophagus in excess of 30% for
 the period of May 12, 2016, to September 13, 2019. O’Con-
 nell does not appeal the CAVC’s dismissal of his appeal to
 that court concerning the Board’s denial of entitlement to
 an initial rating in excess of 10% prior to July 1, 2014, and
 in excess of 60% from July 1, 2014, to May 11, 2016, which
 the CAVC dismissed as abandoned. See O’Connell v.
 McDonough, 2023 WL 3143712, at *1, *4 (Vet. App. Apr.
 28, 2023) (“CAVC Decision”).
                        BACKGROUND
            A. Service and Medical Background
      O’Connell served in the United States Army from Au-
 gust 1969 to May 1971. Id. at *1. In October 2010, during
 a Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) examination,
 O’Connell was diagnosed with GERD, which was later clas-
 sified as “highly symptomatic” in an examination in July of
 2014. O’Connell, No. 200826-106207, 2020 WL 9049581,
 slip op. at *1, *2–3 (B.V.A. Dec. 22, 2020) (“Board Deci-
 sion”). During the July 2014 examination, the examiner
 noted that O’Connell suffered “symptoms productive of con-
 siderable impairment of health, persistently recurrent epi-
 gastric distress, dysphagia, reflux, regurgitation, nausea
 that occurs [four] or more times a year, vomiting that oc-
 curs [four] or more times a year, and hematemesis that oc-
 curs [two] times per year.” Id. at *3. In May of 2016,
 O’Connell was hospitalized for mental health issues at a
 VA facility. CAVC Decision, 2023 WL 3143712, at *1.
Case: 23-2199    Document: 12     Page: 3    Filed: 02/08/2024

 O'CONNELL v. MCDONOUGH                                    3

 From May to July of 2016, the VA medical records demon-
 strated that O’Connell “denied nausea, vomiting, ab-
 dominal pain, melena, hematochezia, or hematemesis”
 (May 12, 2016), reported “no abdominal pain, nausea, vom-
 iting, constipation, diarrhea [and showed] no blood in stool
 or melena” (May 13, 2016), and “denied nausea, vomiting,
 diarrhea, constipation, and anorexia-weight loss” (July
 2016). Board Decision, 2020 WL 9049581, at *3. Each of
 these records were created while O’Connell was being eval-
 uated for psychiatric issues. CAVC Decision, 2023 WL
 3143712, at *1. In August of 2016, O’Connell also “reported
 that his GERD was troublesome with eating, and that
 there was some occasional dysphagia.” Board Decision,
 2020 WL 9049581, at *3. Records from VA treatment from
 2017 to 2019 “generally note that [O’Connell] continues to
 take medication for his reflux/heartburn, and that he occa-
 sionally experiences dysphagia” but “do not reflect com-
 plaints or findings of additional symptoms such as nausea,
 vomiting, pyrosis, heartburn, regurgitation, hematemesis,
 or melena and show [O’Connell] denied the presence of
 many of these symptoms during routine gastrointestinal
 evaluations.” Id.
                     B. Board Decision
     In August of 2018, the Board granted O’Connell enti-
 tlement to disability compensation for GERD, with Bar-
 rett’s esophagus, which resulted from medications taken to
 treat his service-connected psychiatric disability. CAVC
 Decision, 2023 WL 3143712, at *1. Then, “[i]n September
 2019, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) imple-
 mented the Board’s decision and assigned a 10% [disabil-
 ity] rating, effective March 9, 2011, and a 30% rating,
 effective July 1, 2014.” Id. In response, O’Connell filed a
 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disa-
 greement) to request that the Board “increase his disability
 rating for GERD from 30% to 60%.” Id. The Board, on De-
 cember 22, 2020, granted the 60% rating for the period
 from July 1, 2014, to May 11, 2016, but denied entitlement
Case: 23-2199     Document: 12     Page: 4    Filed: 02/08/2024

 4                                  O'CONNELL v. MCDONOUGH

 to a rating above 10% prior to July 1, 2014, or a rating
 above 30% from May 12, 2016, to September 13, 2019.
 Board Decision, 2020 WL 9049581, at *4.
                      C. CAVC Decision
     O’Connell appealed the Board’s decision to the CAVC,
 which began by finding that, since O’Connell did not raise
 arguments regarding the Board’s denial of entitlement to
 an initial rating in excess of 10% prior to July 1, 2014, or
 in excess of 60% from July 1, 2014, to May 11, 2016, appeal
 on those issues was abandoned. CAVC Decision, 2023 WL
 3143712, at *1. Thus, the issues on that appeal concerned
 only the period of May 12, 2016, to September 13, 2019. Id.
     In that proceeding, O’Connell argued: (1) that “[t]he
 Board’s decision to assign a lower, staged disability rating
 for May 13, 2016, to September 13, 2019, as compared to
 the preceding time period, should be reversed” because the
 lack of evidence on the record demonstrating an improve-
 ment in his condition made the decision clearly erroneous;
 and, alternatively, and (2) the Court should remand for
 reexamination of O’Connell’s condition because the Board
 violated its duty to assist by “fail[ing] to order a new VA
 medical examination before reducing O’Connell’s disability
 rating in view of three days of irrelevant medical records.” 1
 Appellant’s CAVC Br. at 4. O’Connell first argued that the
 Board clearly erred in relying on the May 2016 medical rec-
 ords to establish that O’Connell’s disability improved be-
 cause the records were made by doctors specializing in
 treating psychiatric disorders and in conjunction with
 O’Connell’s psychiatric episode, during which he was men-
 tally incapacitated. Appellant’s CAVC Br. at 8, 12. O’Con-
 nell then asserted that the Board’s duty to assist requires

     1   O’Connell only appeals to this court on the basis of
 his second argument that the Board violated its duty to as-
 sist.
Case: 23-2199    Document: 12     Page: 5    Filed: 02/08/2024

 O'CONNELL v. MCDONOUGH                                    5

 that any doubt as to the degree of disability be resolved in
 favor of O’Connell, and that reasonable doubt existed even
 if the psychiatric records were properly considered by the
 Board “due to the extraordinary content of such medical
 records” and because “there is no other corroborating evi-
 dence that the Board relied on.” Appellant’s CAVC Br. at
 12 (citing 38 C.F.R. § 4.3). According to O’Connell, since
 the record did not adequately demonstrate the current
 state of his disability, the Board was required to conduct a
 medical examination to fulfill its duty to assist and failed
 to do so before determining that the 60% rating would not
 continue for the period from May 12, 2016, to September
 13, 2019. Appellant’s CAVC Br. at 12 (citing Goss v.
 Brown, 9 Vet. App. 109, 114 (1996); 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)).
 O’Connell noted that reexamination is necessary “if it is
 likely that a disability has improved, or if evidence indi-
 cates there has been a material change in a disability or
 that the current rating may be incorrect.” Appellant’s
 CAVC Br. at 12 (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 3.327(a)). Since, ac-
 cording to O’Connell, there was insufficient medical evi-
 dence for the Board to determine that his condition
 improved, the Board’s failure to order a new medical exam-
 ination violated its duty to assist. Appellant’s CAVC Br. at
 12. The Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs (Secretary) “gener-
 ally dispute[d] [O’Connell’s] arguments and urge[d] the
 [c]ourt to affirm.” CAVC Decision, 2023 WL 3143712, at
 *2.
    The CAVC began by rejecting O’Connell’s first argu-
 ment due to his flawed portrayal of the 30% rating as a “re-
 duction” of the initial rating rather than as part of a
 “staged rating,” 2 before turning to his argument that the

    2    Separate disability ratings for distinct periods of
 time, known as “staged ratings,” may be assigned to differ-
 ent periods based on the facts found. CAVC Decision, 2023
Case: 23-2199    Document: 12      Page: 6    Filed: 02/08/2024

 6                                  O'CONNELL v. MCDONOUGH

 Board violated its duty to assist. Id. at *4. The CAVC then
 found that O’Connell did not demonstrate that the Board
 failed to meet its obligation under 38 C.F.R. § 3.327(a) to
 provide a reexamination and “that the evidence was too old
 or insufficient to demonstrate that his condition had im-
 proved.” Id. The CAVC rejected his argument as missing
 the mark on several issues: “primarily, that this is not a
 rating reduction case; that [O’Connell] has not demon-
 strated that the Board relied solely on the May 2016 rec-
 ords, erred in affording those records probative value, or
 relied on the lack of evidence; and that the Board ade-
 quately explained why the evidence showed that a 30% rat-
 ing was warranted.” Id. Thus, the CAVC affirmed the
 Board’s decision denying O’Connell’s entitlement to a disa-
 bility rating in excess of 30% from May 12, 2016, to Sep-
 tember 13, 2019. Id. He now appeals that decision to this
 court.
                         DISCUSSION
     This court’s jurisdiction over CAVC decisions is limited
 by statute to the review of questions of law—such as “chal-
 lenge[s] to the validity of any statute or regulation or any
 interpretation thereof”—and thus, absent a constitutional
 issue, this court does not have jurisdiction to review “fac-
 tual determinations” or applications of law to fact. 38
 U.S.C. § 7292(c), (d)(2); Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369,
 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When the CAVC properly interprets
 a statute or regulation and the question remaining is

 WL 314712, at *2 (citing Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App.
 505, 509 (2007)). Rating reduction procedures do not apply
 in the assignment of a staged rating if the rating is not re-
 duced to a level below what was in effect before the claim-
 ant appealed to the Board. Id. at *3 (citing Fenderson v.
 West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999); O’Connell v. Nicholson,
 21 Vet. App. 89, 94 (2007)).
Case: 23-2199     Document: 12     Page: 7    Filed: 02/08/2024

 O'CONNELL v. MCDONOUGH                                      7

 whether the regulation was violated such that the Board
 committed clear and unmistakable error, that inquiry is
 “fact-based” and therefore “beyond [this court’s] jurisdic-
 tion.” Glover v. West, 185 F.3d 1328, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir.
 1999).
      The duty to assist, codified as 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, re-
 quires that VA “make reasonable efforts to assist a claim-
 ant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the
 claimant’s claim for a benefit under a law administered by
 [VA].” 38 U.S.C. § 5103A. This includes “providing a med-
 ical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such
 an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision
 on the claim” and can include a reexamination “if the prior
 examination no longer reflects the current state of the con-
 dition.” 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); Payne v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App.
 373, 390 (2019). To trigger the reexamination duty, how-
 ever, the claimant “‘must come forward with at least some
 evidence that there has in fact been a material change in
 his or her disability’ since the prior examination.” Payne,
 31 Vet. App. at 390 (quoting Glover, 185 F.3d at 1333).
      O’Connell argues that the Board violated its duty to as-
 sist by relying solely and inappropriately on the May 2016
 medical documents “to construct a new discrete time period
 during which [O’Connell’s] condition allegedly improved,”
 and that even if consideration of these documents was ap-
 propriate, it was insufficient to conclude that his “condition
 was no longer as ‘severe and frequent’ to justify sustained
 60 percent rating.” Appellant’s Br. at 4. He contends that
 drawing this conclusion was a violation of 38 C.F.R.
 § 3.327(a), which obligates the Board to conduct reexami-
 nations “if it is likely that a disability has improved, or if
 evidence indicates a material change in a disability or that
 the current rating may be incorrect.” Appellant’s Br. at 4–
 5 (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 3.327(a)). O’Connell argues that the
 May 2016 records were both insufficient and too old for the
 Board to properly draw its conclusion, and thus that to
Case: 23-2199     Document: 12      Page: 8    Filed: 02/08/2024

 8                                   O'CONNELL v. MCDONOUGH

 fulfill its duty to assist it should have conducted a reexam-
 ination of his condition. Appellant’s Br. at 5.
      The Secretary argues that the CAVC’s “determination
 that VA fulfilled its duty to assist is a factual inquiry” that
 this court lacks jurisdiction to review, and thus this appeal
 should be dismissed. Appellee’s Br. at 8–9 (citing Garrison
 v. Nicholson, 494 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Glover,
 185 F.3d at 1333; Lynch v. McDonough, No. 2021-224, 2022
 WL 726955, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2022); Macak v.
 McDonald, 598 F. App’x 776, 780 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Flores v.
 McDonald, 586 F. App’x 595, 596 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Ruiz-
 Rojas v. Shinseki, 341 F. App’x 619, 620 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
 In the alternative, the Secretary argues this court should
 affirm because the CAVC did not err in finding that VA
 satisfied its duty to assist. Appellee’s Br. at 10.
      We agree with the Secretary that this court does not
 have jurisdiction over the present case. O’Connell does not
 contend that the CAVC incorrectly interpreted any statute
 or regulation relevant to this appeal; rather, his argument
 is that the Board failed to meet its duty to assist under the
 facts of the case because it relied on “irrelevant” examina-
 tions that took place in the context of psychiatric evalua-
 tions. Appellant’s Br. at 4. O’Connell’s argument is that
 (1) the Board improperly relied on the May 2016 medical
 documents that took place during psychiatric evaluations 3;

     3   To the extent that O’Connell argues that it was im-
 proper as a matter of law for the Board to look to psychiat-
 ric evaluation records as evidence of his physical condition,
 O’Connell did not proffer any legal support that the use of
 evidence pertaining to a physical condition gathered dur-
 ing a psychiatric evaluation is insufficient to evaluate that
 physical condition under the regulations. Before the
 CAVC, and before this court, “he [did] not cite any author-
 ity for the proposition that the Board may not assign
Case: 23-2199    Document: 12      Page: 9    Filed: 02/08/2024

 O'CONNELL v. MCDONOUGH                                     9

 (2) the “extraordinary content” of those medical records cre-
 ates reasonable doubt on the scope of the disability, which
 must be decided in O’Connell’s favor; and (3) the Board re-
 lied only on those medical records and no other evidence,
 which was insufficient and too old for the Board to ade-
 quately conclude a disability rating of 30% for the period
 beginning May 12, 2016. Appellant’s Br. at 4–5. The con-
 text, content, and sufficiency of the medical records from
 May 2016 at most constitute an application of law to facts,
 which is outside of this court’s jurisdiction. See Delisle v.
 McDonald, 789 F.3d 1372, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (whether
 specific symptoms identified by a claimant warrant an in-
 creased disability rating is a question of fact); Lynch, 2022
 WL 726955, at *2 (whether evidence is material is a finding
 of fact).
     Further, as noted by the Secretary, determining com-
 pliance with section 5103A is a factual issue. Garrison, 494
 F.3d at 1370 (holding that the Board’s compliance with the
 notice portion of section 5103A is a factual inquiry); Lynch,
 2022 WL 726955, at *3 (“‘[The Board’s] compliance with the

 probative value to treatment records that were not gener-
 ated for purposes of evaluating his GERD, nor d[id] he cite
 any evidence supporting his contentions that he was not
 competent to accurately report his symptoms in May 2016.”
 CAVC Decision, 2023 WL 3143712, at *3. Thus, he did not
 make the argument that it was legally improper to consider
 this evidence.
     In fact, CAVC case law suggests that considering men-
 tal health notes to evaluate a physical disability is not le-
 gally erroneous if the regulation or statute does not
 “explicitly require that a report of examination or hospital-
 ization pertain solely or primarily to the service-connected
 disability for which an increased evaluation is being
 sought.” Johnson v. McDonald, 2015 WL 367652, at *8
 (Vet. App. Jan. 28, 2015).
Case: 23-2199     Document: 12      Page: 10    Filed: 02/08/2024

 10                                   O'CONNELL v. MCDONOUGH

 [“duty to assist” obligation] is outside our jurisdiction’ be-
 cause such an inquiry ‘involves factual issues.’”). When
 “there is no claim that the Board was interpreting a stat-
 ute” and no claim that “the Board [was] establishing a legal
 rule to be applied to similar fact situations in future cases,”
 then the Board’s decision is a result of “appl[ying] estab-
 lished law to the facts” and this Court does not have juris-
 diction to review the CAVC’s ruling on the Board’s actions.
 Garrison, 494 F.3d at 1370. In this case, O’Connell does
 not contend that the Board misinterpreted sections 5103A
 or 3.327(a), nor does he claim the Board established any
 erroneous legal rule for future cases. Thus, O’Connell’s ap-
 peal is based on the argument that the Board’s decision re-
 sulted from a misapplication of established law to the facts
 of his case, and therefore, falls outside of this court’s juris-
 diction.
                          CONCLUSION
     Accordingly, we dismiss O’Connell’s appeal from the
 judgement of the CAVC.
                         DISMISSED
                             COSTS
 No costs.