Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 09/09/2024
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
SAMUEL KNOX, JR., Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________
2024-1517 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 22-4230, Judge Scott Laurer. ______________________
Decided: September 9, 2024 ______________________
SAMUEL KNOX, JR., Columbia, SC, pro se.
KATY M. BARTELMA, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; CARLING KAY BENNETT, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Of- fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet- erans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________
Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 09/09/2024 2 KNOX v. MCDONOUGH
Before DYK, CHEN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Samuel Knox, Jr., a veteran of the United States Army, proceeding pro se, appeals a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veter- ans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying him entitlement to service connection for a sinus disability due to herbicide exposure, dengue fever, and other conditions from his time in service. The Veterans Court determined that the Board adequately explained its reasoning, the Board did not clearly err in its decision, and the Board did not fail to enforce the Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) duty to assist. Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Knox’s appeal, we dismiss. BACKGROUND Mr. Knox served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1966 to April 1968, including a tour in Vietnam. Mr. Knox’s service records from Vietnam show Mr. Knox had “shoddy post cerv[ical] nodes,” 1 as well as a “[f]ever of undetermined origin,” which was suspected to be from dengue. S.A. 15–16. In December 2015, Mr. Knox applied for disability com- pensation related to “constant draining of mucus mem- brane and congestion,” as well as headaches and dizziness. S.A. 13. Mr. Knox alleged that his conditions were caused by the dengue fever that he suffered from during his ser- vice. Mr. Knox also alleged his conditions were caused by
Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 09/09/2024 KNOX v. MCDONOUGH 3
his exposure to herbicides during his service or other con- ditions of service. In November 2016, the VA denied Mr. Knox’s claim. In December 2016, Mr. Knox timely filed a Notice of Disagreement (“NOD”). The VA reviewed the NOD, and, again, denied the claim. Mr. Knox timely ap- pealed to the Board. In May 2019, the Board found that “[t]he medical evi- dence reflects diagnoses of allergic rhinitis due to pollen and chronic maxillary sinusitis, and the service treatment records reflect an in-service diagnosis of sho[dd]y post cer- vical nodes condition.” S.A. 13. The Board determined “a VA examination is necessary to determine the etiology of his current sinus disability,” which Mr. Knox had not re- ceived. Id. The Board remanded to the Regional Office (“RO”) to “schedule [Mr. Knox] for a VA examination to de- termine the nature and etiology of his current sinus disa- bility(ies)” and to evaluate whether it is likely that his disabilities are related to his service. S.A. 13–14. The RO issued a request to schedule the examination, but Mr. Knox “informed VA that he did not want to report for a VA examination pertaining to his claim and that his claim should be evaluated based on the evidence of record.” S.A. 8. The case then returned to the Board. The Board determined that because Mr. Knox did not report for his examination, it was proper to adjudicate the claim based on the evidence in the record. The Board then applied the Shedden test 2 and concluded that “while the Veteran has a
Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 4 Filed: 09/09/2024 Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 5 Filed: 09/09/2024 KNOX v. MCDONOUGH 5
statute or regulation, nor does he present a constitutional question. Mr. Knox essentially asks us to review and re- weigh the evidence in the record. This is beyond our juris- diction. Because the Veterans Court did not elaborate on the meaning of any statute, regulation, or constitutional ques- tion in its opinion, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.
Footnotes
[1] In his briefing, Mr. Knox explains that “shoddy post cerv[ical] nodes condition is the draining of your para- nasals due to lymphatic fluid drain from head and neck.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 2; see also Appellant’s Informal Br. 5.
[2] “[I]n order to establish service connection or ser- vice-connected aggravation for a present disability the vet- eran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or in- jury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present dis- ability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated 4 KNOX v. MCDONOUGH current diagnos[i]s of chronic maxillary sinusitis, and the evidence shows that the Veteran had shoddy post cervical nodes in service, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran’s current diagnos[i]s be- gan during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.” S.A. 8. Thus, the Board denied his claim. Mr. Knox appealed, and the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding the Board did not err in decid- ing the case based on the evidence in the record without a VA medical exam because Mr. Knox failed to appear for his requested exam and did not show good cause for his failure to appear. The Veterans Court also affirmed the Board’s conclusion that the evidence in the record did not show a nexus between Mr. Knox’s service and his disability. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION “Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited by statute.” Flores-Vazquez v. McDonough, 996 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “We re- view ‘the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any inter- pretation thereof (other than a determination as to a fac- tual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the decision.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a)). “[A]bsent a constitutional question, we ‘may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determina- tion, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.’” Id. (quoting § 7292(d)(2)). In his briefing, Mr. Knox raises no coherent argument that the Veterans Court failed to properly interpret a during service.” Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166– 67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).