Chapman v. McDonald
662 F. App'x 965
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Ronald L. Chapman, Sr., a pro se appellant, sought a higher, retroactive VA disability rating for a service‑connected psychiatric disorder for the period June 18, 2005–April 23, 2012.
- VA originally granted service connection and a 30% rating effective June 18, 2005; later increased to 50% effective same date, and to 100% effective April 23, 2012.
- Chapman, through counsel, appealed to the Board seeking a 70% rating for the June 18, 2005–April 23, 2012 period; the Board found his symptoms aligned with the 50% criteria based on frequency, severity, and duration.
- The Veterans Court affirmed the Board, rejecting Chapman’s argument that the Board failed to make specific findings as to frequency, severity, duration, and social/occupational impairment under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130.
- On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Chapman argued misapplication of § 4.130 (invoking Vazquez‑Claudio), erroneous weighing of evidence (alleged substitution of medical judgment), and claimed earlier onset/secondary causation for his psychiatric disorder.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed: it concluded the Board and Veterans Court applied § 4.130 properly, made adequate findings, and that factual/medical determinations raising no constitutional issue are not reviewable by the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board/Veterans Court misapplied 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 by failing to make specific findings on frequency, severity, duration | Chapman: Board/Veterans Court failed to make specific findings as required by Vazquez‑Claudio | VA: Board and Veterans Court made adequate findings tying symptoms and impairment to the 50% criteria | Held: No misapplication; findings were adequate and supported 50% rating |
| Whether the Board failed to consider social and occupational impairment adequately | Chapman: Board did not properly consider evidence of social/occupational impairment supporting 70% | VA: Board evaluated symptomatology and social/occupational impairment and found 50% more consistent | Held: Board’s assessment adequate; Veterans Court properly affirmed |
| Whether the Board impermissibly substituted its medical judgment by interpreting "severe"/"significant" in medical reports | Chapman: Board improperly interpreted medical terms and substituted its own opinion | VA: Board reasonably weighed and favored objectively confirmed symptoms from examinations | Held: No reversible error; Board’s weighing was a permissible credibility/weight determination |
| Whether court can review alleged errors involving medical facts, secondary causation, and onset dates | Chapman: Requests earlier OCD diagnosis and secondary causation should be adopted | VA: Those are medical fact findings outside appellate review absent constitutional claim | Held: These are factual/medical issues beyond court’s authority under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); no constitutional issue shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Vazquez‑Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (explains when Board must make specific findings linking symptom frequency/severity/duration to rating criteria)
- Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (Vet. App. 1991) (discusses limits on the Board’s weighing of medical evidence)
- Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (overruled portions of Colvin on other grounds; cited in context of Board evidence evaluation)