Sateren v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs , 419 F. App'x 999 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •            NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    __________________________
    DENNIS SATEREN,
    Claimant-Appellant,
    v.
    ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
    AFFAIRS,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    __________________________
    2011-7067
    __________________________
    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
    Veterans Claims in case no. 08-3858, Judge Lawrence B.
    Hagel.
    __________________________
    Decided: May 5, 2011
    __________________________
    DENNIS SATEREN, of Portsmouth, Virginia, pro se.
    ELLEN M. LYNCH, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litiga-
    tion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
    Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee.
    With her on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attor-
    ney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and TODD M.
    HUGHES, Deputy Director. Of counsel on the brief was
    2                                          SATEREN v. DVA
    DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy Assistant General Counsel,
    United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Wash-
    ington, DC.
    __________________________
    Before NEWMAN, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    Dennis Sateren (“Sateren”) appeals from a final deci-
    sion of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
    Claims (“Veterans Court”), affirming the decision of the
    Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”), which denied his
    claim to service-connected benefits for rheumatoid arthri-
    tis and inflammatory synovitis. Sateren v. Shinseki, No.
    08-3858 (Vet. App. Jul. 26, 2010). For the reasons dis-
    cussed below, this court dismisses Sateren’s appeal.
    BACKGROUND
    Sateren served in the military from April 1965 to
    April 1967. During that time, he alleges he was exposed
    to Agent Orange in Vietnam. Many years after his mili-
    tary discharge, Sateren sought compensation for rheuma-
    toid arthritis and inflammatory synovitis. In April 2000,
    a Veterans Affairs regional office denied his claim and
    Sateren appealed.
    In the course of pursuing his claim for benefits,
    Sateren underwent several medical examinations. None
    of the examiners concluded that his rheumatoid arthritis
    or inflammatory synovitis was conclusively related to
    Agent Orange exposure. In fact, none of these examiners
    was able to determine the cause of Sateren’s condition.
    One examiner, in April 2008, reported that she had
    made a review of medical literature that uncovered only a
    single article suggesting a possible relationship of rheu-
    matoid arthritis to Agent Orange exposure. This exam-
    iner noted weaknesses in that article and concluded that
    SATEREN v. DVA                                             3
    the evidence was insufficient to establish a correlation
    between Sateren’s condition and Agent Orange exposure.
    In July 2008, the Board denied Sateren’s claim. The
    Board found the April 2008 opinion among the most
    probative items of medical evidence because it contained a
    review of the medical literature and the examiner’s medi-
    cal opinion that the medical evidence was insufficient to
    link Sateren’s condition to Agent Orange exposure. After
    reviewing Sateren’s file, the Board concluded that a
    preponderance of evidence was against his claim.
    Sateren appealed to the Veterans Court, arguing that
    the Board inadequately explained its basis for relying on
    certain medical opinions while affording less weight to
    others. Sateren further argued that the evidence in his
    case was at least in equipoise, entitling him to the benefit-
    of-the-doubt. The Veterans Court affirmed. It concluded
    that the Board properly explained its decision, committed
    no legal error in weighing the evidence, and that Sateren
    was not entitled to the benefit-of-the-doubt because the
    evidence was not in equipoise. Sateren timely appealed to
    this court.
    DISCUSSION
    This court’s authority to review decisions of the Vet-
    erans Court is extremely limited. Under 
    38 U.S.C. § 7292
    (a), this court has jurisdiction over rules of law or
    the validity of any statute or regulation, or an interpreta-
    tion thereof relied on by the Veterans Court in its deci-
    sion. In appeals from the Veterans Court not presenting
    a constitutional question, this court “may not review (A) a
    challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to
    a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular
    case.” 
    Id.
     § 7292(d)(2). In other words, this court lacks
    authority to review challenges to the Board’s factual
    determinations. See, e.g., Johnson v. Derwinski, 
    949 F.2d 394
    , 395 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
    4                                             SATEREN v. DVA
    Sateren’s appeal challenges the Board’s findings that
    there was insufficient evidence to establish service con-
    nection and that Sateren was not entitled to the benefit of
    the doubt. Both are factual determinations or, at best,
    involve the application of the law to the particular facts of
    the case. Waltzer v. Nicholson, 
    447 F.3d 1378
    , 1380 (Fed.
    Cir. 2006) (challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence
    are beyond the authority of this court to review); Ferguson
    v. Principi, 
    273 F.3d 1072
    , 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (a finding
    that the evidence is not in equipoise for the benefit-of-the-
    doubt provision, 
    38 U.S.C. § 5107
    (b), “involves no inter-
    pretation of the statute,” and is beyond the authority of
    this court to review). Nothing in the record reflects an
    interpretation of a statute or regulation reviewable by
    this court. 
    38 U.S.C. § 7292
    (a). This case presents, at
    best, a challenge relating to the application of law to the
    particular facts of the case, an activity we are foreclosed
    from reviewing in appeals from the Veterans Court. 
    Id.
    § 7292(d)(2).    Accordingly, this court must dismiss
    Sateren’s appeal.
    DISMISSED
    COSTS
    Each party shall bear its own costs.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2011-7067

Citation Numbers: 419 F. App'x 999

Judges: Newman, Gajarsa, Linn

Filed Date: 5/5/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024