Trevor Taylor v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TREVOR TAYLOR,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1743
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-5059, Judge Michael P. Allen.
______________________
Decided: October 23, 2024
______________________
TREVOR TAYLOR, Ann Arbor, MI, pro se.
RAVI DHANANJAYEN SOOPRAMANIEN, Commercial
Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-
appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN
F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
______________________
Case: 24-1743 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2024

-- 1 of 6 --

TAYLOR v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, HUGHES and CUNNINGHAM,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Trevor Taylor appeals a decision from the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Mr. Taylor seeks service connection for a right hip
disability and a right testicular disability. Because
Mr. Taylor raises only factual issues that we cannot review,
we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
I
Mr. Taylor served in the United States Army from June
1986 to June 1990 and from January to March 1991. In
2021, Mr. Taylor sought service connection for a right hip
condition and a right testicular condition. A Regional Office
of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued a rating
decision denying his claim because the record did not show
that either condition occurred during or was caused by
Mr. Taylor’s service. SAppx. 142–51.1 The VA continued to
uphold its original determination in later requests for
review, even in light of additional evidence submitted by
Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
(Board). The Board concluded that remand was necessary
because the VA had committed “pre-decisional duty to
assist error[s] . . . in failing to obtain a medical opinion as
to whether [Mr. Taylor’s] service-connected . . . disabilities
caused or aggravated his current right hip disability” and
in failing to afford Mr. Taylor a VA examination for his
right testicle claim. SAppx. 103–04. The VA obtained an
examination on remand and subsequently issued a decision
1 “SAppx.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
by Appellee, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. See ECF No. 12.
Case: 24-1743 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 10/23/2024

-- 2 of 6 --

TAYLOR v. MCDONOUGH 3
confirming the denial of service connection for both
disabilities.
Mr. Taylor again appealed to the Board. On review, the
Board remanded the decision again, concluding, among
other things, that the examiner’s report did not include a
direct service connection opinion for Mr. Taylor’s hip
condition. SAppx. 49. With respect to direct service
connection for the testicular condition, the Board found
error because the opinion was based on a lack of
documented treatment. SAppx. 51 (“The Board may not
reject as not credible any uncorroborated statements
merely because the contemporaneous medical evidence is
silent as to complaints or treatment for the relevant
condition or symptoms.”). On remand, the VA scheduled
additional examinations, but Mr. Taylor cancelled both
appointments. The VA then issued another decision
denying Mr. Taylor’s claims because there was insufficient
medical evidence in the record without the additional
examinations. Mr. Taylor filed another Board appeal and
indicated he “[was] not interested in more exams.” SAppx.
25.
On review for the third time, the Board denied service
connections for both the right hip disability and the right
testicular disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 requires the claim be
rated based on only record evidence if the claimant fails to
report for a scheduled examination absent good cause. The
Board found Mr. Taylor lacked good cause for cancelling his
appointments. SAppx. 18. Regarding the hip condition, the
Board concluded the only relevant evidence of record was
Mr. Taylor’s lay statements, and these were insufficient to
form the required causal link to establish service
connection. Regarding the testicular condition, the Board
concluded the record evidence “[did] not include a positive
etiological opinion with an adequate rationale addressing
direct and secondary . . . theories of service connection.”
SAppx. 22.
Case: 24-1743 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 10/23/2024

-- 3 of 6 --

TAYLOR v. MCDONOUGH 4
Mr. Taylor appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court). The
Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that
Mr. Taylor “failed to demonstrate that the Board clearly
erred or provided inadequate reasons or bases for its
decision denying service connection” for Mr. Taylor’s
disabilities. SAppx. 5. The Veterans Court disagreed with
Mr. Taylor’s argument that the Board failed to consider
whether his hip and testicular disabilities were secondary
to his current service-connected disabilities, because the
Board “clearly acknowledged” many pieces of evidence
Mr. Taylor pointed to, and Mr. Taylor was unable to
demonstrate prejudicial error as to any pieces of evidence
he alleges were overlooked. SAppx. 8. Further, the
Veterans Court found Mr. Taylor’s arguments that the
opinions of private treating physicians carry greater
weight than those of a VA examiner unpersuasive because
the Veterans Court has previously expressly rejected that
rule. Finally, as to Mr. Taylor’s argument that the Board
should have resolved interpretive doubt in his favor, the
Veterans Court concluded that Mr. Taylor had not provided
an explanation of what had been misinterpreted against
him.
Mr. Taylor timely appeals the Veterans Court’s decision
affirming the Board’s denial of service connection for his
right hip and right testicular conditions.
II
We have jurisdiction to review a Veterans Court
decision “with respect to the validity of a decision of the
[Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or
regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a
determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by
the Court in making the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a);
Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We “have exclusive jurisdiction . . . to interpret
constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent
Case: 24-1743 Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 10/23/2024

-- 4 of 6 --

TAYLOR v. MCDONOUGH 5
presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c).
“Except to the extent that an appeal under this chapter
presents a constitutional issue, [we] may not review (A) a
challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to
a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular
case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
III
On appeal, Mr. Taylor identifies seven alleged errors
for review by this court: (i) the loss or deletion of pro se
motions and notices filed in proceedings below, (ii) alleged
erroneous actions by the Clerk of the Veterans Court
resulting in deletions and false entries to the record,
(iii) inappropriate co-mingling between VA lawyers and
Veterans Court judges, (iv) disagreements with the
Veterans Court decision, (v) the Veterans Court’s disregard
for elements of Mr. Taylor’s informal brief, (vi) lack of
appropriate oversight mechanisms of the VA by the
Veterans Court, and (vii) undue influence by VA counsel
over the Veterans Court. In addition to his informal brief,
Mr. Taylor also submitted four additional letters that
repeat his argument that there was misconduct at the VA
and the Veterans Court and allege that VA counsel
“doxxed” Mr. Taylor by posting his documents to the
docket. See ECF Nos. 35–38. Mr. Taylor characterizes these
errors as both legal and constitutional.
As an initial matter, although Mr. Taylor seems to
reference a separation of powers argument, see Appellant’s
Informal Br. at 7–8, we do not identify any such
constitutional violation in Mr. Taylor’s allegations.
Further, although some of Mr. Taylor’s arguments about
inappropriate influence by the VA counsel and the like
could potentially implicate constitutional concerns, we see
no specific allegations that would sufficiently raise the
issue. Likewise, the Veterans Court also did not address or
invoke any constitutional rights in its decision. Labeling
arguments as constitutional does not automatically confer
Case: 24-1743 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 10/23/2024

-- 5 of 6 --

TAYLOR v. MCDONOUGH 6
jurisdiction. See Flores v. Nicholson, 476 F.3d 1379, 1382
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining that a veteran’s mere
characterization of an issue as constitutional in nature is
insufficient to establish appellate jurisdiction in this
court); Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(emphasizing that “[t]o the extent that [a veteran] has
simply put a ‘due process’ label on his contention that he
should have prevailed . . . his claim is constitutional in
name only”).
The remainder of Mr. Taylor’s arguments on appeal
amount to a factual disagreement with the outcome of his
case. In discussing his allegations of misconduct by the VA,
Mr. Taylor supports his claim by stating that the medical
evidence of record does support the appropriate link
between his disabilities and his service, and that it was
misconduct for the Veterans Court to conclude otherwise.
Mr. Taylor also argues that his records were misread, and
the Veterans Court failed to properly consider the record
evidence. We are not permitted to reassess Mr. Taylor’s
records as he requests. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider Mr. Taylor’s
appeal.
IV
We have considered Mr. Taylor’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons stated above,
we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1743 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 10/23/2024

-- 6 of 6 --