Anthony C. Bradley v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ANTHONY C. BRADLEY,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1198
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-2001, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: May 14, 2025
______________________
ANTHONY CRAIG BRADLEY , Grand Prairie, TX, pro se.
L AURA O FFENBACHER ARADI, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by WILLIAM J AMES G RIMALDI, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Case: 25-1198 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 05/14/2025

-- 1 of 7 --

BRADLEY v. COLLINS 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CHEN and C UNNINGHAM ,
Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Anthony Bradley appeals a decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans
Court) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals (Board), which denied his request for an earlier effec-
tive date for a service connected condition. For the
following reasons, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Bradley served in the U.S. Army from September
1984 to March 1994. S. Appx. 2; S. Appx. 14.1 In March
1994, he filed a claim for service connection for chest pain,
which he described as ongoing and having occurred period-
ically throughout his career. S. Appx. 20. Mr. Bradley de-
scribed no gastrointestinal symptoms in association with
the claimed chest pains. Id. The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) denied the claim. Id. In April 1997, Mr. Brad-
ley attempted to reopen the claim, and the VA again denied
it. Id.; S. Appx. 5–6.
On May 7, 2012, Mr. Bradley filed a claim for gastroin-
testinal issues. S. Appx. 20. He described the disability as
involving indigestion, abdominal pain, gas, bloating, and
an upset stomach. Id. Mr. Bradley did not describe chest
pain as a symptom of the disability. Id. The VA granted
service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease
(GERD) with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) based on “sub-
sternal pain,” effective May 7, 2012. Id. at 19–20. Mr.
Bradley appealed to the Board, arguing his substernal pain
was connected to his previously reported chest pain, and
1 “S. Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix at-
tached to Appellee’s Informal Response Brief.
Case: 25-1198 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 05/14/2025

-- 2 of 7 --

BRADLEY v. COLLINS 3
the effective date for his GERD should therefore be March
1994. S. Appx. 5; S. Appx. 19.
The Board denied his request for an earlier effective
date. S. Appx. 19–22. The Board found Mr. Bradley’s prior
claim for chest pain was based on “distinct factual bases”
as compared to his GERD claim because gastrointestinal
issues were not provided in his prior claim or in the evi-
dence of record at the time. Id. at 20–21. Mr. Bradley ap-
pealed to the Veterans Court, which affirmed the Board’s
denial. S. Appx. 2–7. Mr. Bradley appeals.
D ISCUSSION
We have jurisdiction to review “the validity of a deci-
sion of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any stat-
ute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other
than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied
on by the [Veterans] Court in making the decision.” 38
U.S.C. § 7292(a). We have “exclusive jurisdiction . . . to in-
terpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the ex-
tent 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 re-
view (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).
On appeal, Mr. Bradley identifies six alleged errors for
review: (1) the Veterans Court failed to ensure the Board
provided an adequate statement of the reasons and bases
for its decision; (2) the VA failed to further develop his
claim of chest pain in March 1994 and April 1997; (3) the
Veterans Court improperly evaluated the scope of his
claim; (4) the Veterans Court violated his constitutional
rights; (5) the Veterans Court allowed the Board to apply
an incorrect legal standard to determine the scope of his
claim; and (6) the Veterans Court legally erred by disre-
garding the Board’s favorable conclusion that 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.156(c) applied. Appellant Informal Br. 5–19.
Case: 25-1198 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 05/14/2025

-- 3 of 7 --

BRADLEY v. COLLINS 4
I.
We lack jurisdiction to review Mr. Bradley’s first three
alleged errors, which amount to factual disagreements
with the outcome of his case. Newhouse v. Nicholson, 497
F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Our jurisdictional stat-
ute precludes appellate review of factual matters and the
application of law to facts.”). First, Mr. Bradley argues the
Veterans Court failed to ensure the Board provided ade-
quate reasons and bases for its decision. As support, Mr.
Bradley argues the Board failed to address all record evi-
dence in its decision, including evidence from his August
2017 rating decision that shows his hiatal hernia is con-
nected to his GERD. The Board, however, did consider the
August 2017 rating decision and Mr. Bradley’s GERD di-
agnosis in its analysis. S. Appx. 15, 19–22. Mr. Bradley’s
argument therefore amounts to a disagreement with the
Board’s weighing of the evidence, which we lack jurisdic-
tion to review. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed.
Cir. 2000) (“The weighing of this evidence is not within our
appellate jurisdiction.”)
Second, Mr. Bradley’s argument that the VA failed to
develop his claim for chest pain is a duty-to-assist argu-
ment. Compliance with the duty to assist is a factual issue
and therefore not within our jurisdiction. See Garrison v.
Nicholson, 494 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also
Glover v. West, 185 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Third,
Mr. Bradley argues the Veterans Court improperly evalu-
ated the scope of his claim. Again, this is a factual issue.
Ellington v. Peake, 541 F.3d 1364, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(holding the interpretation of the contents of a claim for
benefits is a factual issue).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Mr. Bradley’s fourth
alleged error—that the Veterans Court violated his consti-
tutional rights. Mr. Bradley raises two constitutional is-
sues under the Fifth Amendment: violation of due process
and a government taking. Mr. Bradley’s constitutional
Case: 25-1198 Document: 20 Page: 4 Filed: 05/14/2025

-- 4 of 7 --

BRADLEY v. COLLINS 5
arguments, however, amount to a disagreement with the
Veterans Court’s factual findings and do not present a con-
stitutional issue. Nor did the Veterans Court decide any
constitutional issues. Mr. Bradley’s characterization of his
arguments as constitutional does not make them so. Helfer
v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding
“characterization of [a] question as constitutional in nature
does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise
lack”).
II.
We have jurisdiction to review Mr. Bradley’s fifth al-
leged error—that the Board applied an incorrect legal
standard to determine the scope of his claim. Lamour v.
Peake, 544 F.3d 1317, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[W]e have au-
thority to decide whether the Veterans Court applied the
correct legal standard.”). Mr. Bradley argues the Veterans
Court erred in affirming the Board decision because the
Board should have determined the scope of his March 1994
claim using the “reasonable expectations” standard in
Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009), instead of the
“distinct factual bases” standard in Boggs v. Peake, 520
F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing 38 U.S.C.
§ 7104(b)). We do not agree.
The Board did apply the “reasonable expectations”
standard in Clemons. The Board cited to Clemons and
found Mr. Bradley’s March 1994 claim for chest pain can-
not “reasonably be construed” as a claim for GERD.
S. Appx. 19, 21. The Veterans Court also cited Clemons,
analyzed Mr. Bradley’s expectations in filing his March
1994 claim, and found no evidence of “intent . . . to file a
claim for GERD.” S. Appx. 3 n.7, 6–7. To the extent Mr.
Bradley argues the Veterans Court was incorrect to also
apply the “distinct factual bases” standard in Boggs to the
March 1994 and May 2012 claims, we do not agree. Appel-
lant Informal Br. 6–7. We have held Boggs and Clemons
are not mutually exclusive. Murphy v. Wilkie, 983 F.3d
Case: 25-1198 Document: 20 Page: 5 Filed: 05/14/2025

-- 5 of 7 --

BRADLEY v. COLLINS 6
1313, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that, “while both Boggs
and Clemons speak to claim scope, they are not inherently
conflicting and do not address the same inquiries”).
Mr. Bradley also argues it was legal error for the Vet-
erans Court to apply the “distinct factual bases” standard
in Boggs because his March 1994 claim for chest pain
lacked a “distinct diagnosis.” Appellant Informal Br. 6–7.
In other words, Mr. Bradley argues a specific diagnosis is
required before the Veterans Court can find two claims
have distinct factual bases. We do not agree. While Boggs
teaches that separately diagnosed conditions with separate
factual bases should be treated as separate claims, it does
not require that a claim have a specific diagnosis before the
Veterans Court can find it has distinct factual bases from
another claim. 520 F.3d at 1337. Accordingly, we see no
legal error in the standards used to determine claim scope.
We also have jurisdiction to review Mr. Bradley’s sixth
alleged error—that the Veterans Court legally erred by dis-
regarding the Board’s favorable conclusion that 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.156(c) applied. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Mr. Bradley sug-
gests his claim must be decided favorably because the
Board concluded § 3.156(c) applies. Appellant Informal Br.
17–18; Appellant Informal Reply Br. 2–13. We do not
agree. Section 3.156(c) sets forth the circumstances under
which the VA must reconsider a claim; it does not mandate
the claim be decided favorably upon reconsideration. 38
C.F.R. § 3.156(c). Here, the Board held § 3.156(c) applied
but found Mr. Bradley failed to prove he claimed a gastro-
intestinal disability before May 2012. S. Appx. 19. The
Veterans Court also considered § 3.156(c) and similarly
held Mr. Bradley failed to show he claimed a gastrointesti-
nal disability before May 2012. S. Appx. 7. Because the
Board and Veterans Court complied with § 3.156(c) by re-
considering Mr. Bradley’s claim for chest pain, there is no
legal error.
Case: 25-1198 Document: 20 Page: 6 Filed: 05/14/2025

-- 6 of 7 --

BRADLEY v. COLLINS 7
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Bradley’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For these reasons, we
affirm in part and dismiss in part.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND DISMISSED-IN-PART
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1198 Document: 20 Page: 7 Filed: 05/14/2025

-- 7 of 7 --