Arroyo-Jusino v. McDonald
664 F. App'x 953
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Armando Arroyo-Jusino served in the Army from 1964–1966 and later sought service connection for PTSD; early service records show no psychiatric treatment.
- Post-service medical records: some treatment for physical injuries (1968–1979), VA psychiatric diagnoses in 1981 (dysthymic disorder, alcohol dependence); a 1987 record diagnosing schizophrenia was found to relate to a different person with the same surname.
- In 1999 a VA psychiatrist diagnosed major depression triggered by delayed-onset PTSD but attributed trauma to events before service (1960, 1962) and did not link PTSD to military service.
- Arroyo-Jusino initially claimed missing letters allegedly attached to his 1965 reassignment/hardship discharge requests that he says would show psychiatric treatment; Board found no basis that such letters contained psychiatric diagnoses and later concluded any missing letters would not likely aid the claim.
- The VA Regional Office denied service connection; the Board denied the claim (2012); the Veterans Court remanded for clarification (2014) and on remand affirmed the Board (2016); Arroyo-Jusino sought reconsideration which the Veterans Court denied.
- Arroyo-Jusino appealed to the Federal Circuit asking it to locate missing records and reconsider evidence; the Secretary moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the appeal primarily challenges factual determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court can review Veterans Court’s factual findings and weighing of evidence | Arroyo-Jusino: Veterans Court ignored evidence and favorable medical opinion; asks Court to locate missing letters and reconsider all evidence | Secretary: Appeal asks the Court to review factual determinations and application of law to facts, which 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) bars | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction—factual determinations and law-applied-to-facts are nonreviewable |
| Whether the VA satisfied its VCAA duty to assist (obtain missing letters) | Arroyo-Jusino: VA failed to obtain/consider letters attached to 1965 petitions that could show in-service treatment | Secretary: Whether VA satisfied duty to assist is a factual question; Board found no reasonable possibility the letters would help | No jurisdiction to review; Board’s factual finding that duty satisfied is not reviewable |
| Whether misattributed schizophrenia diagnosis was improperly weighed | Arroyo-Jusino: Alleged favorable opinions and diagnoses were disregarded or misattributed | Secretary: Record shows 1987 schizophrenia diagnosis pertained to another person; VA experts corrected attribution | Court lacks jurisdiction to reweigh evidence or second-guess attribution determinations |
| Whether Veterans Court provided adequate statement of reasons or considered new material evidence | Arroyo-Jusino: Board and Veterans Court failed to provide adequate reasons and ignored new/material evidence of in-service treatment | Secretary: These are challenges to factual application and reasoned-basis assessments, committed to factfinder | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Court may not review adequacy of factual reasoning in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (weighing and evaluation of evidence are factual determinations beyond appellate review)
- DeLaRosa v. Peake, 515 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (court lacks jurisdiction to review application of law to particular facts)
- Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Federal Circuit cannot review Veterans Court factual findings or discretionary weighing)
- Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (VA not required to obtain records when there is no reasonable possibility they would aid the claim)
- Garrison v. Nicholson, 494 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (whether VA satisfied duty to assist is a factual determination)