Swafford v. McDonald
664 F. App'x 937
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Veteran Robert L. Swafford served on active duty Feb. 1953–Dec. 1954, including Korea; later developed hearing loss and sought service connection for tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss.
- Initial VA examiner (2007) found it "less likely than not" that hearing loss/tinnitus were service connected, noting normal hearing at discharge and post-service civilian noise exposure.
- RO and Board initially denied claims; Veterans Court remanded for inadequate reasons/basis and an inadequate medical examination.
- On remand, a VA clinical audiologist again attributed hearing loss to civilian occupational noise, recreational firearm use, genetics, and aging; RO and Board reaffirmed denial after considering additional evidence.
- Veterans Court affirmed the Board, finding the medical opinion and the Board's reasons and bases adequate; Swafford appealed to this court challenging the medical opinion, factual findings, and alleging conspiratorial/constitutional violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy/qualification of VA medical opinion | Swafford: audiologist unqualified/incompetent; opinion inadequate | Government: disagreement with report contents, opinion adequate | Court: No jurisdiction to review adequacy of medical opinions; dismissed |
| Factual sufficiency of Board's benefits denial | Swafford: left-ear damage tied to service; Board misstated service dates; requests compensation | Government: denial based on factual record and adequate rationale | Court: Factual challenges are beyond this court's §7292 jurisdiction; dismissed |
| Constitutional/conspiracy claims re: examiners/witnesses | Swafford: Board conspired with unqualified false witnesses; constitutional issues | Government: allegations amount to disagreement over examiner report, not true constitutional claims | Court: Characterization as constitutional is "in name only"; substance is factual; no jurisdiction; dismissed |
| Request to vacate post-remand Board actions and award benefits | Swafford: asks court to void actions after first remand and award compensation | Government: actions were lawful determinations of fact; remedies inappropriate here | Court: Court cannot grant relief because issues are factual; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Prinkey v. Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.) (adequacy of medical opinions is not reviewable by this court)
- Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir.) (courts examine substance of constitutional labels; claims that are factual in nature are not §7292(c) constitutional questions)
- Weaver v. United States, 98 F.3d 518 (10th Cir.) (substance-over-labels approach to plaintiffs' characterizations of claims)