Lynch v. McDonough
21-2224
| Fed. Cir. | Mar 10, 2022Background
- Isaac Lynch, Jr. served on active duty in the U.S. Army from Sept.–Dec. 1970 and participated in ROTC summer camp in 1969; he has a long history of VA claims dating back to prior litigation (Lynch I).
- In June 2020 the Board of Veterans’ Appeals: declined to reopen 22 prior claims (no new and material evidence); denied service connection for 21 claims; assigned a 10% rating for tinnitus; and set July 3, 2013 as the effective date for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus (it did reopen and grant service connection for an acquired stress disorder).
- Lynch appealed to the Veterans Court, challenging (a) the Board’s calculation of his period of active service (arguing ROTC/Reserves time should count); (b) the Board’s refusal to reopen or to grant service connection on various claims; (c) alleged missing records and noncompliance with the VCAA duty to assist; and (d) violations of statutes including the Civil Rights Act and HIPAA.
- The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s factual findings and reasons or bases, agreed that ROTC/Reserve time did not qualify as "active duty" or "active duty for training," and dismissed claims that did not challenge the Board’s decision (including discrimination and HIPAA allegations) for lack of jurisdiction.
- On appeal to this court, jurisdiction is limited to legal questions and interpretations of statutes or regulations; factual findings and application of law to facts are not reviewable under 38 U.S.C. § 7292.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ROTC/Reserve time counts as active duty | Lynch: ROTC enrollment and Reserve service should be included in "active duty" period | VA/Board: Statutory definitions of "active duty" and "active duty for training" do not include his ROTC/Reserve time | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to review application of law to facts; Veterans Court and Board correct |
| Whether Board erred by not reopening prior claims (new and material evidence) | Lynch: Submitted new evidence that should reopen 22 claims | Board: Evidence was cumulative or not material; reopening is a factual finding | Dismissed (no jurisdiction to review factual finding) |
| Whether service connection should have been granted for certain disabilities | Lynch: Entitled to service connection on various claims | Board: Plaintiff failed to carry burden to establish service connection (factual determination) | Dismissed (fact-intensive; court lacks jurisdiction) |
| Alleged statutory violations (Civil Rights Act, HIPAA, VCAA duty to assist, EEOC, USERRA, etc.) and missing records | Lynch: VA and others violated multiple statutes and failed to include records | Veterans Court/VA: These claims do not challenge the Board decision and/or were not raised below; jurisdictional limits prevent review | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; court affirms dismissal of claims not related to Board decision or raised first on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynch v. Shinseki, [citation="476 F. App'x 401"] (Fed. Cir.) (prior appeal addressing related VA claims)
- Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (limits on appellate review of Veterans benefits factual findings)
- Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (whether evidence is "new and material" is a factual finding)
- Garrison v. Nicholson, 494 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (VA duty-to-assist compliance involves factual inquiry)
- Davis v. Principi, 276 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (establishing service-connection is a factual determination)