Daniel R. Smith v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DANIEL R. SMITH,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-2213
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 21-3246, Chief Judge Margaret C.
Bartley.
______________________
Decided: March 10, 2025
______________________
K ENNETH M. CARPENTER , Carpenter Chartered, To-
peka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.
G ALINA I. FOMENKOVA , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES G RIMALDI ,
PATRICIA M. M C CARTHY ; JONATHAN K RISCH, DEREK
S CADDEN, Office of General Counsel, United States Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 23-2213 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 1 of 13 --

SMITH v. COLLINS 2
Before LOURIE , REYNA , and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
TARANTO, Circuit Judge.
Daniel R. Smith, who is currently blind, underwent
medical examinations upon entering military service in
August 1964 and upon leaving in June 1965. Reports from
both examinations noted that he had poor night and color
vision and that his vision was correctable in both eyes. Af-
ter his discharge from service, Mr. Smith filed several
claims with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or its
predecessor Veterans Administration (VA for both), under
38 U.S.C. § 1110, seeking benefits for an asserted service-
connected disability based on retinitis pigmentosa, an eye
disease causing degeneration of the retina resulting in vi-
sion loss. An ophthalmologist examined Mr. Smith and
opined that his retinitis pigmentosa preexisted his service
and did not increase in severity during his service. After
VA denied Mr. Smith’s claim on that basis, the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals (Board) agreed, determining that the
ophthalmologist’s opinion constituted clear and unmistak-
able evidence rebutting the presumption that Mr. Smith
was of sound health when he entered service, and the Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed.
Smith v. McDonough, No. 21-3246, 2023 WL 3016311, at
*1–4 (Vet. App. Apr. 20, 2023) (2023 Decision). Mr. Smith
appeals. Given the statutory limits on our jurisdiction to
review Veterans Court decisions, 38 U.S.C. § 7292, we dis-
miss Mr. Smith’s appeal.
I
A
Two statutes frame the dispute about the benefits
claim at issue, 38 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1153. Section 1111
states:
For the purposes of section 1110 of this title, every
veteran shall be taken to have been in sound
Case: 23-2213 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 2 of 13 --

SMITH v. COLLINS 3
condition when examined, accepted, and enrolled
for service, except as to defects, infirmities, or dis-
orders noted at the time of the examination, ac-
ceptance, and enrollment, or where clear and
unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the in-
jury or disease existed before acceptance and en-
rollment and was not aggravated by such service.
38 U.S.C. § 1111. Section 1153 applies if there is an in-
crease in severity of a preexisting condition, stating:
A preexisting injury or disease will be considered
to have been aggravated by active military, naval,
air, or space service, where there is an increase in
disability during such service, unless there is a spe-
cific finding that the increase in disability is due to
the natural progress of the disease.
38 U.S.C. § 1153. We have addressed those provisions in a
number of decisions. See, e.g., Kent v. Principi, 389 F.3d
1380, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Wagner v. Principi, 370
F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
B
Mr. Smith served on active duty from August 1964 to
July 1965. 2023 Decision, at *1. He underwent a medical
examination on August 12, 1964—the day that he entered
service—and the examining physician noted that Mr.
Smith’s vision was correctable by glasses to 20/40 or 20/50,
but that Mr. Smith had poor night and color vision. Ten
months later, on June 11, 1965, Mr. Smith underwent an-
other medical examination, and the examiner noted abnor-
malities in Mr. Smith’s eye condition attributable to
bilateral retinal degeneration, while also noting that Mr.
Smith’s vision remained correctable to essentially the same
Case: 23-2213 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 3 of 13 --

SMITH v. COLLINS 4
extent.1 Mr. Smith requested discharge from military ser-
vice on June 16, 1965. The Army’s medical evaluation
board reviewed Mr. Smith’s medical examinations and rec-
ommended that he be separated from active duty, and Mr.
Smith was discharged on July 20, 1965.
In 1966, Mr. Smith filed a claim seeking disability ben-
efits for an eye condition, and when VA denied the claim,
Mr. Smith did not appeal. 2023 Decision, at *1; see Smith
v. Shinseki, No. 08-1959, 2010 WL 2377052, at *1 (Vet.
App. June 15, 2010) (2010 Decision). Mr. Smith sought to
reopen his claim in 1973, but reopening was denied for
want of new and material evidence since the 1966 denial.
2010 Decision, at *1.
In 1996, Mr. Smith submitted evidence of bilateral ret-
initis pigmentosa to support his claim to disability benefits
for service-connected blindness. 2010 Decision, at *1; 2023
Decision, at *1. But the relevant VA regional office again
found that no new and material evidence had been submit-
ted since the 1966 denial and declined to reopen his claim.
2010 Decision, at *1; 2023 Decision, at *1. Mr. Smith ap-
pealed, arguing that the regional office’s 1966 denial con-
tained clear and unmistakable error and that his evidence
of retinitis pigmentosa was new and material. 2010 Deci-
sion, at *1; 2023 Decision, at *1. The Board rejected both
arguments in 2008. 2010 Decision, at *1.
1 The report from the August 1964 examination
noted correctability of the right eye to 20/40 and of the left
eye to 20/50, whereas the report from the June 1965 exam-
ination noted correctability of both eyes to 20/40. The
Board deemed that minor difference likely attributable to
“the slight variability of testing situations.” J.A. 39; see
also J.A. 116. That factual finding is not subject to review
here.
Case: 23-2213 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 4 of 13 --

SMITH v. COLLINS 5
In 2010, however, the Veterans Court set aside the
2008 Board decision. Id. It ruled that the Board had in-
correctly applied the relevant VA regulation when consid-
ering the clear-and-unmistakable-error issue, and it
remanded the matter to the Board to reconsider the issue.
Id.; see also 2023 Decision, at *1. The Veterans Court also
remanded the matter to the Board to consider whether Mr.
Smith’s 1966, 1973, and 1996 claims constituted “separate
claims in and of themselves rather than requests to reopen
decided claims.” 2010 Decision, at *6; see also 2023 Deci-
sion, at *1.
In April 2011, the Board determined that Mr. Smith’s
1996 submission constituted a new claim—distinct from
Mr. Smith’s previously denied 1966 claim—and the Board
remanded the 1996 claim to the regional office for factual
development, including through an examination by an oph-
thalmologist, and adjudication. 2023 Decision, at *1. The
resulting examination, which is important to the present
appeal, took place on April 27, 2012, and was conducted by
ophthalmologist Dr. Stewart M. Wilson. Id. at *1; J.A. 115.
In his report on the examination, Dr. Wilson said of Mr.
Smith’s medical history that Mr. Smith (a) “entered the
service with best vision of 20/40- [in] each eye, no color vi-
sion, poor night vision, [and] retinal pigmentary changes,”
and (b) “left the service the same way some 10–11 months
later.” J.A. 103; see also 2023 Decision, at *1. Dr. Wilson
also opined about two aspects of Mr. Smith’s retinitis pig-
mentosa relevant here: first, whether it preexisted Mr.
Smith’s entry into service, and second, whether it increased
in severity during Mr. Smith’s service. 2023 Decision, at
*2. Regarding preexistence, Dr. Wilson explained that
“[r]etinitis pigmentosa is considered an inherited genetic
trait and/or genetic defect present at the time of birth or
essentially at conception”—i.e., “not an acquired trait” and
“not caused by external factors.” J.A. 115; see also 2023
Decision, at *2. Regarding increase in severity during ser-
vice, Dr. Wilson determined that Mr. Smith’s condition
Case: 23-2213 Document: 39 Page: 5 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 5 of 13 --

SMITH v. COLLINS 6
“less likely [than] not increased in severity in the service”
and that there was “no evidence of record that the severity
increased” because Mr. Smith “entered the service with
20/40- vision in each eye and left the service with 20/40-
vision in each eye.” J.A. 116; see also 2023 Decision, at *2.
And although Mr. Smith had argued that the sunlight he
was exposed to while in service worsened his condition, Dr.
Wilson explained that studies demonstrate that reducing
exposure to sunlight does not slow the progression of reti-
nitis pigmentosa, indicating that increased exposure to
sunlight would not cause retinitis pigmentosa to progress
more quickly. J.A. 116–17; see also 2023 Decision, at *2.
In November 2012, the VA regional office denied Mr.
Smith’s claim. 2023 Decision, at *2. Mr. Smith appealed,
and the Board, in September 2018, similarly denied Mr.
Smith’s claim. Id. The Board noted that the “presumption
of soundness” applied to the retinitis pigmentosa condition
because that condition was not noted when Mr. Smith en-
tered service; but the Board found that the presumption
was overcome by Dr. Wilson’s opinion, which provided the
“clear and unmistakable evidence” needed to show that the
condition did preexist service and, also, did not increase in
severity during service (so the section 1153 aggravation
standard was inapplicable). J.A. 65; see 2023 Decision, at
*2 (describing Board decision). Mr. Smith appealed, and in
May 2020, the Veterans Court remanded the matter to the
Board for it to address more fully why Dr. Wilson’s opinion,
which answered a question that used a “less likely than
not” standard, met the higher standard of clear and unmis-
takable evidence. 2023 Decision, at *2; Smith v. Wilkie, No.
19-0027, 2020 WL 2781844, at *5 (Vet. App. May 29, 2020).
In 2021, on remand from the 2020 Veterans Court de-
cision, the Board again found that Mr. Smith’s retinitis pig-
mentosa clearly and unmistakably preexisted service and
was not aggravated by his military service. 2023 Decision,
at *2. The Board addressed the Veterans Court’s concerns
regarding the different standards:
Case: 23-2213 Document: 39 Page: 6 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 6 of 13 --

SMITH v. COLLINS 7
Given that the examiner concluded that the service
treatment records indicated that [Mr. Smith’s] vis-
ual acuity did not worsen during his short time in
service and that there was no medical basis to
credit [Mr. Smith’s] assertion that his sun exposure
during service worsened his underlying visual dis-
ability; and given that the examiner did not find
any other basis in the record to conclude that [Mr.
Smith’s] pre-existing eye disability underwent any
increase in severity during service, the Board con-
cludes that the opinion undebatably indicates that
[Mr. Smith’s] pre-existing eye disability underwent
no increase in severity during service and thus
meets the higher standard of “clear and unmistak-
able evidence” of a lack of aggravation of the under-
lying disability during service.
J.A. 42–43.
Mr. Smith appealed the 2021 Board decision to the Vet-
erans Court. He did not challenge the Board’s finding that
his condition preexisted his service, but he did challenge
the Board’s finding that his condition was not aggravated
during service. See Smith v. McDonough, No. 21-3246,
2022 WL 16549466, at *1, *3 (Vet. App. Oct. 31, 2022) (2022
Decision). In October 2022, the Veterans Court affirmed
the Board’s 2021 decision, interpreting Mr. Smith’s appeal
as arguing that the Board “provided inadequate reasons or
bases for finding that Dr. Wilson’s May 2012 opinion meets
the standard of clear and unmistakable evidence.” Id. at
*3. But Mr. Smith sought reconsideration, arguing that
the Veterans Court misunderstood his appeal as a “reason
or bases” argument rather than one seeking review of
whether Dr. Wilson’s opinion was legally sufficient as to
clear and unmistakable evidence.
In April 2023, the Veterans Court withdrew its 2022
decision and issued a new decision affirming the 2021
Board decision. 2023 Decision, at *1. The Veterans Court
Case: 23-2213 Document: 39 Page: 7 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 7 of 13 --

SMITH v. COLLINS 8
described the Board as having “found that Dr. Wilson’s
May 2012 opinion constituted clear and unmistakable evi-
dence that [Mr. Smith’s] preexisting retinitis pigmentosa
did not increase in severity during service,” even though
Dr. Wilson answered a question framed using a “less likely
than not” standard, because “the evidence cited in and the
rationale of the opinion met the higher standard of clear
and unmistakable evidence.” Id. at *3. The Veterans
Court saw no basis for disturbing the Board’s finding, rea-
soning that “the May 2012 opinion rises to the level of clear
and unmistakable evidence of a lack of in-service aggrava-
tion” and citing to Dr. Wilson’s explanation that Mr. Smith
entered and left service with the same vision, that Mr.
Smith was not in service long enough to experience the pro-
gressive effects of his retinitis pigmentosa, and that studies
demonstrated that Mr. Smith’s service-related exposure to
sunlight would not have affected the progression of retini-
tis pigmentosa. Id. at *4.
Addressing Mr. Smith’s argument that Dr. Wilson im-
permissibly relied on the absence of evidence, the Veterans
Court explained that Dr. Wilson’s opinion was “based on
affirmative evidence—a comparison of vision tests at en-
trance and separation from service—that demonstrated
that no change in visual acuity occurred during service.”
Id. And regarding Dr. Wilson’s answer to a question
framed using a “less likely than not” standard, the Veter-
ans Court reasoned that such language did not “change[]
the essential character of his opinion,” which, when “read
as a whole,” “leaves no doubt” that Mr. Smith’s vision did
not change during service. Id.
The Veterans Court’s decision became final on May 12,
2023, and Mr. Smith timely appealed.
II
Our jurisdiction to review a decision of the Veterans
Court and, thus, Mr. Smith’s appeal, is “limited by statute.”
Goodman v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d 1383, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
Case: 23-2213 Document: 39 Page: 8 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 8 of 13 --

SMITH v. COLLINS 9
see generally 38 U.S.C. § 7292. As relevant here, we have
authority 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 inter-
pretation thereof (other than a determination as to a fac-
tual matter) that was relied on by the Court in making the
decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) (omitting exception for re-
viewing schedule of ratings). We have authority to address
“relevant questions of law” that come within the foregoing
language, id. § 7292(d)(1), but when (as in the present mat-
ter) there is no constitutional issue presented, 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,” id. § 7292(d)(2).
It is undisputed here that Mr. Smith is entitled to the
Section 1111 presumption of soundness because his retini-
tis pigmentosa was not noted when he entered service. It
is also undisputed here that there was clear and unmistak-
able evidence that the condition in fact preexisted Mr.
Smith’s service. What Mr. Smith challenges is the deter-
mination that VA rebutted the presumption of soundness
in the second required respect—namely, showed by clear
and unmistakable evidence that the condition did not in-
crease in severity during service (and so was not aggra-
vated by service under Section 1153). Mr. Smith makes
two arguments in support of this challenge. We conclude
that we lack jurisdiction to address those arguments.
A
Mr. Smith argues that Dr. Wilson’s 2012 opinion did
not supply “clear and unmistakable” evidence, as required
by Section 1111, because Dr. Wilson was asked whether it
was “at least as likely as not that there was no increase in
the severity” of Mr. Smith’s retinitis pigmentosa in service,
not whether there was “clear and unmistakable evidence”
that Mr. Smith’s retinitis pigmentosa did not increase in
severity during service. See Smith Opening Br. at 12
Case: 23-2213 Document: 39 Page: 9 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 9 of 13 --

SMITH v. COLLINS 10
(emphasis omitted). This contention lies outside our juris-
diction.
It is the Board, as finder of fact, that must assess
whether the evidence before it was “clear and unmistaka-
ble” as required by Section 1111, and the Veterans Court
reviews that finding. See, e.g., Joyce v. Nicholson, 443 F.3d
845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Wagner, 370 F.3d at 1097;
Belcher v. West, 214 F.3d 1335, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2000);
Harris v. West, 203 F.3d 1347, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, both the Board and the Veterans Court expressly ap-
plied the “clear and unmistakable evidence” standard to
Dr. Wilson’s opinion and determined the standard to be
met. The Board characterized its finding as “undebat-
abl[e]” in light of Dr. Wilson’s explanation that Mr. Smith’s
vision did not worsen during his service and that “there
was no medical basis” for Mr. Smith’s arguments regarding
the effects of sunlight on retinitis pigmentosa. J.A. 42–43.
The Veterans Court, affirming that finding, stated that Dr.
Wilson’s explanation was “precisely the sort of well-rea-
soned and well-supported opinion that cannot be misinter-
preted and misunderstood”—even though Dr. Wilson
provided this explanation in response to a question framed
in “less likely than not” language. 2023 Decision, at *4.
Mr. Smith’s argument is nothing but a request that we
disagree with the Board’s and the Veterans Court’s deter-
mination that Dr. Wilson’s opinion sets forth the requisite
clear and unmistakable evidence. We lack authority to re-
view that determination. “[W]hether the evidence regard-
ing [the veteran’s] pre-existing condition rises to the level
of ‘clear and unmistakable evidence’ is simply the applica-
tion of the facts to the legal standard established by sec-
tion 1111, an issue that we are without jurisdiction to
consider.” Belcher, 214 F.3d at 1338; see also Waltzer v.
Nicholson, 447 F.3d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Kent does
not stand for the proposition that questions regarding the
sufficiency in fact of the evidence, which require
Case: 23-2213 Document: 39 Page: 10 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 10 of 13 --

SMITH v. COLLINS 11
application of law to fact, are within the jurisdiction of this
court.”).
B
Mr. Smith’s second argument is that Dr. Wilson’s opin-
ion impermissibly drew “an inference . . . based upon an
absence of evidence,” which Mr. Smith asserts “cannot, as
a matter of law, rise to the level of ‘clear and unmistakable
evidence.’” Smith Opening Br. at 13. We also lack author-
ity to decide the merits of this argument.
Mr. Smith’s contention that Section 1111 precludes
treating the absence of evidence as “clear and unmistaka-
ble evidence” is not like his first argument, just discussed.
This second argument is an assertion of a proposition of
law, not an assertion about either a factual matter or a
matter of application of law to fact. See Kent, 389 F.3d at
1383 (exercising jurisdiction to decide the correctness of “a
per se rule barring rebuttal of the presumption [of sound-
ness] if an entrance examination indicates that a condition
was tested and found not to exist upon entry into service”
because that entrance examination would inherently be
conflicting evidence). Nevertheless, framing a legal issue
(concerning a rule of law or the validity of a statute or reg-
ulation or its interpretation) is not the only requirement
that must be met to give us authority under 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292 to address an appeal like this (not involving a con-
stitutional issue).
For us to address a legal question presented to us on
appeal (here, whether Section 1111 precludes the absence
of evidence from constituting “clear and unmistakable evi-
dence”), a second precondition must be met. The Veterans
Court must have made a determination on the legal issue
presented to us by the appellant, either making a “decision”
on a “rule of law” or “rel[ying] on” a challenged statute or
regulation or its interpretation. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Such
a determination might be express or, instead, might be im-
plicit in the sense that the Veterans Court’s result might
Case: 23-2213 Document: 39 Page: 11 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 11 of 13 --

SMITH v. COLLINS 12
be altered by adopting the legal position pressed by appel-
lant to this court. See Taylor v. McDonough, 71 F.4th 909,
924–25 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (en banc); Andrews v. Nicholson,
421 F.3d 1278, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Szemraj v. Principi,
357 F.3d 1370, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Morgan v. Prin-
cipi, 327 F.3d 1357, 1359–64 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Forshey v.
Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc),
superseded in part by statute, Veterans Benefits Act of
2002, Pub. L. No. 107-330, 116 Stat. 2820, as recognized in
Morgan, 327 F.3d at 1359–64.2 Here, that requirement is
not met.
The Veterans Court’s decision cannot fairly be viewed
as expressly or implicitly treating an absence of evidence
as itself constituting clear and unmistakable evidence. The
Veterans Court nowhere stated that Section 1111 allowed
such treatment of evidence, and given what it did say, the
Veterans Court did not implicitly allow such treatment ei-
ther: Adoption of Mr. Smith’s view that an absence of evi-
dence is insufficient to rebut the Section 1111 presumption
could not alter the Veterans Court’s bottom-line ruling.
The Veterans Court expressly ruled that “Dr. Wilson’s
opinion is not based on a lack of medical evidence of aggra-
vation” but instead on “affirmative evidence . . . that
demonstrated that no change in visual acuity occurred dur-
ing service.” 2023 Decision, at *4. Nor does the Veterans
Court’s affirmance of the Board’s decision implicitly deem
an absence of evidence sufficient to rebut the Section 1111
presumption: The Board’s decision itself did not rest on the
absence of evidence, but rather on affirmative evidence of
Mr. Smith’s examinations pre- and post-service. J.A. 42.
2 This jurisdictional requirement is distinct from
such non-jurisdictional rules as those governing failure to
present an argument to the tribunal whose decision is be-
ing reviewed. See Morgan, 327 F.3d at 1364; Forshey, 284
F.3d at 1353–58.
Case: 23-2213 Document: 39 Page: 12 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 12 of 13 --

SMITH v. COLLINS 13
For these reasons, it is clear that the Veterans Court
did not expressly or implicitly make a decision on the legal
issue Mr. Smith presents in his appeal to us. We could not
conclude otherwise without first disagreeing with the Vet-
erans Court on the application of law to fact, which we may
not do. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). We therefore lack juris-
diction to decide the validity of his legal contention here.
III
Because we are without jurisdiction to rule on either of
the issues presented by Mr. Smith, we dismiss his appeal.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
DISMISSED
Case: 23-2213 Document: 39 Page: 13 Filed: 03/10/2025

-- 13 of 13 --