Stark v. McDonald, 669 F. App'x 556

Thomas L. Stark, Army veteran (1966–1986), sought VA disability for cervical spine issues he later alleged began after a 1979 car accident.
Stark was previously granted service connection for chronic low back strain (1987) but did not initially claim cervical disability in his 1986 application.
Between 1988 and 1999 medical records, reports of neck pain appear sporadically; a 1999 C&P examiner diagnosed possible cervical spine disease.
Stark filed an informal claim for cervical disability in 2002 (claimed as secondary to low back condition); the Regional Office denied it and the Board affirmed in 2007; later remanded after Stark submitted a medical opinion in 2008.
After additional opinions and a 2011 C&P exam finding no service connection, the Board denied service connection in August 2013, relying in part on credibility findings about Stark’s inconsistent reports of neck pain.
The Veterans Court (Feb. 4, 2015) found the Board erred in explaining a credibility conclusion but deemed the error non-prejudicial under 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2) and affirmed; Stark appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Issue	Stark's Argument	McDonald/VA's Argument	Held
Whether the Veterans Court erred in applying § 7261(b)(2) when finding the Board’s credibility error non-prejudicial	The Veterans Court misapplied or misinterpreted § 7261(b)(2) in concluding the Board’s error was non-prejudicial	The Veterans Court correctly applied § 7261(b)(2); no statutory interpretation issue presented	The Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding the appeal presented an application-of-law-to-fact issue, not a statutory interpretation question

Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (discusses when a court interprets a statute or regulation)
Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc) (explains meaning of judicial interpretation versus application)