Case: 13-7026 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 04/25/2013
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________
ROBERT M. CHAPMAN,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee.
__________________________
2013-7026
__________________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 11-1839, Judge Kenneth B. Kra-
mer.
__________________________
ON MOTION
__________________________
Before RADER, Chief Judge, DYK and WALLACH, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves for the court to
dismiss this appeal. Roger M. Chapman has not responded
to that motion.
Case: 13-7026 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 04/25/2013
ROBERT CHAPMAN V. SHINSEKI 2
While serving in the Air Force from November 1958 to
October 1962, Mr. Chapman was injured from a close range
air compressor explosion. As a result of that incident, Mr.
Chapman subsequently received Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) disability compensation benefits for bilateral
tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss.
Approximately 48 years after his discharge from ser-
vice, Mr. Chapman filed a claim for an acquired psychiatric
disorder, including dysthymic disorder. He asserted that
he was entitled to service connection on the ground that the
in-service explosion had given him difficulty in dealing with
stress over the years. Alternatively, Mr. Chapman con-
tended that the ringing in his ears attributed to his psychi-
atric condition, thus entitling him to service connection on a
secondary basis. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.
After receiving the claim, a regional office of the DVA
arranged for Mr. Chapman to receive a medical examina-
tion. Following that examination, the DVA examiner
prepared a report in which it was noted that Mr. Chapman
had described emotional trauma stemming from the
breakup of his marriage and the strained relationship with
his son. The examiner concluded that Mr. Chapman’s
“serious and tumultuous divorce that caused him to lose a
substantial amount of money, a partner of many years
whom the Veteran felt had betrayed him, and a disconnec-
tion from his son” was “more likely than not the etiological
cause of the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder,”
instead of his tinnitus. The examiner further concluded
that Mr. Chapman’s dysthymia was not related to, or
aggravated by, his service or tinnitus.
In light of that report, the regional office denied enti-
tlement to service connection. The Board of Veterans
Appeals (Board) sustained that ruling on the ground that a
Case: 13-7026 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 04/25/2013
3 ROBERT CHAPMAN V. SHINSEKI
nexus between Mr. Chapman’s current disability and
service had not been established.
Mr. Chapman then appealed to the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims (Veterans Court). Addressing Mr. Chap-
man’s argument that his psychiatric condition was related
to the explosion that occurred in service, the Veterans
Court noted that the only evidence that supported that
contention was Mr. Chapman’s own lay statements, and
that while relevant, the Board had found them not credible
on their own to establish service connection in light of the
DVA medical examiner’s opinion and the gap between
service and the first complaints of a psychiatric condition.
Finding the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous and
was supported by a plausible basis in the record, the Veter-
ans Court affirmed. This appeal followed.
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited by statute. 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 interpretation thereof relied on
by the court in its decision. This court may also entertain
challenges to the validity of a statute or regulation, and
may interpret constitutional and statutory provisions as
needed for resolution of the matter. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). In
contrast, except where an appeal presents a constitutional
question, we lack jurisdiction over challenges to factual
determinations or laws or regulations as applied to the
particular case. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
In his informal brief, Mr. Chapman primarily contends
that the Board and Veterans Court failed to properly
comprehend the facts in his case that he suggests entitle
him to a reversal of the Veterans Court’s decision, and an
award of service connection. However, Mr. Chapman fails
to present any argument that the Veterans Court misinter-
preted a statute or regulation or that his case involves a
Case: 13-7026 Document: 13 Page: 4 Filed: 04/25/2013
ROBERT CHAPMAN V. SHINSEKI 4
constitutional issue that would support that contention.
Instead, Mr. Chapman appears to present only a factual
disagreement with the Board and Veterans Court over
whether he is entitled to service connection. This court
does not have jurisdiction to review such factual issues.
The only other argument that Mr. Chapman appears to
raise is that the Veterans Court should have applied the
benefit of the doubt rule. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). But Mr.
Chapman presents no argument that can be construed to
suggest the Veterans Court misinterpreted that statute,
and it appears the benefit of the doubt rule was not applied
here because the Board and Veterans Court concluded that
the facts were not in equipoise. To the extent that Mr.
Chapman seeks to challenge that conclusion, that issue too
is outside of this court’s limited jurisdictional review.
Because Mr. Chapman has presented no arguments
over which we have jurisdiction, we dismiss.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk
s26
ISSUED AS MANDATE: April 25, 2013