Brown v. McDonald, 655 F. App'x 845

Phillip A. Brown served on active duty 1987–1990 and sustained in-service injuries (slip-and-fall and an automobile accident) with treatment for cervical strain; no contemporaneous low-back diagnosis in service records.
Brown filed for service connection for a cervical condition (granted in 1996) and for low back pain (initially filed 1997; denied by RO in 1998 as an acute, nonservice-related event).
Brown sought to reopen his low-back claim in 2006; VA examinations and subsequent RO decisions repeatedly concluded his current low-back disorder was not related to service; RO denied the reopened claim in August 2011 after remands.
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (July 18, 2015) found Brown has a low-back disorder but concluded the disorder manifested long after service and is not service connected; the Board weighed competing medical opinions and evidence against service connection.
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board’s decision on November 5, 2015; Brown appealed to the Federal Circuit challenging the weighing of evidence, the denial of the benefit-of-the-doubt, and the absence of an independent medical exam.
The Federal Circuit dismissed Brown’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding his challenges were factual determinations or the application of law to fact — matters beyond the court’s statutory review authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board erred in rejecting medical opinion linking low-back disorder to service	Brown: VA should credit his physician’s opinion that low-back injury was "more likely than not" service-connected	Gov: This is a factual dispute about weight of evidence and medical sufficiency that this court cannot review	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — weighing and sufficiency are factual matters outside review
Whether Brown was entitled to the benefit-of-the-doubt rule	Brown: Board/Vet. Court failed to give him the benefit of the doubt	Gov: Applicability of benefit-of-the-doubt depends on factual weighing; not reviewable here	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — application of law to specific facts not reviewable
Whether Board should have ordered an independent medical examination (IMEs)	Brown: An unbiased medical opinion/IME was required to resolve conflicting opinions	Gov: Decision to obtain additional exam concerns factual sufficiency; beyond this court’s review	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — sufficiency of medical opinion is factual
Whether the Veterans Court improperly weighed conflicting evidence	Brown: Veterans Court erred in how it weighed evidence against him	Gov: Weighting of evidence is a factual determination committed to the fact-finder	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — appellate review limited under 38 U.S.C. §7292

Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (describing Federal Circuit’s limited jurisdiction over Veterans Court decisions)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (evaluation and weighing of evidence are factual determinations outside this court’s review)
Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (benefit-of-the-doubt inapplicable when evidence preponderates for or against the claim)
Prinkey v. Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (sufficiency of a medical opinion is a factual question not within this court’s jurisdiction)