Thompson v. Shulkin
686 F. App'x 912
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- James Thompson served in the Air Force from 1975–1979 and sought VA service-connection for low back and bilateral knee conditions dating to service.
- Thompson initially filed claims in 2005; the regional office (RO) denied them and Thompson did not appeal that decision.
- In 2010 Thompson requested reopening; RO found new and material evidence, reopened the claims, but denied them on the merits.
- Thompson submitted additional physician statements asserting onset in service; the Board reopened the claims but denied service connection, crediting prior medical statements over Thompson’s lay assertions.
- The Veterans Court affirmed the Board, treating Thompson’s arguments as disagreement with evidence weighing; Thompson appealed to the Federal Circuit.
- The Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal raised only factual challenges (credibility/evidence weighing), not legal or statutory interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Federal Circuit may review the Veterans Court decision | Thompson: Board/VC erred by relying on Thompson’s inconsistent statements to civilian doctors; his service records show service onset | Government: Decision involves factual credibility and application of law to facts, not a legal or statutory question | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction—appeal raises factual determinations not reviewable under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) |
| Whether the Veterans Court misinterpreted law or a statute | Thompson: Informal brief asserted the Veterans Court implicated statutory/regulatory interpretation | Government: Veterans Court merely applied law to facts; no legal interpretation presented | Court found no statutory/regulatory interpretation and no jurisdiction to review factual application |
| Whether the Federal Circuit can consider newly proffered evidence | Thompson: Submitted a medical record after briefing as purported new evidence | Government: Evaluation of new-and-material evidence belongs to the RO under VA procedures | Court: Lacks jurisdiction to decide sufficiency of new evidence; Thompson may submit it to the RO per VA rules |
| Whether Board improperly credited medical statements over lay testimony | Thompson: Lay statements and service records should be credited; doctors’ records inconsistent | Government: Board’s credibility determination is factual and entitled to deference | Held: Credibility and weighing are factual matters; Federal Circuit cannot review them |
Key Cases Cited
- Kays v. Snyder, 846 F.3d 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Board credibility findings are quintessential factual determinations)