Trevor Spencer Taylor v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TREVOR SPENCER TAYLOR,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1642
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-6758, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith.
______________________
Decided: September 6, 2024
______________________
T REVOR T AYLOR, Ann Arbor, MI, pro se.
K ATY M. BARTELMA , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON , ERIC P. BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Case: 24-1642 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 09/06/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

TAYLOR v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CHEN, Circuit Judge, and
MURPHY , District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM
Trevor Spencer Taylor, a veteran, appeals from a deci-
sion of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Vet-
erans Court”). SAppx7–17.2 He seeks a service connection
for bilateral hearing loss. For the following reasons, we
dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Taylor served in the United States Army from June
1986 to June 1990 and from January to March 1991. His
service as an M1 Armor Crewman carried a risk of expo-
sure to hazardous noise and certain toxic substances.
SAppx29. In 2019, he sought a service connection for bilat-
eral hearing loss. A Regional Office of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (“VA”) examined his record and found no
hearing test results meeting the VA’s criteria for impaired
hearing. SAppx28. The VA noted that Mr. Taylor declined
a new auditory examination because he believed that there
was already sufficient evidence of record. SAppx30. The
VA denied service connection. Mr. Taylor appealed to the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). The Board found
that Mr. Taylor did not have bilateral hearing loss for VA
purposes and concluded that the criteria for service connec-
tion for bilateral hearing loss were not met. SAppx18. The
Board noted that Mr. Taylor had submitted his own state-
ments that he believes he suffers from hearing loss, but the
1 Honorable John F. Murphy, District Judge, United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylva-
nia, sitting by designation.
2 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix at-
tached to Appellee’s Informal Brief, ECF No. 18.
Case: 24-1642 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 09/06/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

TAYLOR v. MCDONOUGH 3
Board gave conclusive weight to the medical evidence in his
record.
Mr. Taylor appealed to the Veterans Court, which af-
firmed in a single-judge decision. SAppx9–17. The Veter-
ans Court reviewed Mr. Taylor’s hearing test data and
confirmed that none met the VA’s criteria for hearing loss.
The Veterans Court also disagreed with Mr. Taylor’s argu-
ments that the VA failed to correctly consider or ade-
quately address his in-service and post-service medical
records. Mr. Taylor sought reconsideration and a full-
panel decision, and the Veterans Court maintained the sin-
gle-judge decision. SAppx8.
Mr. Taylor timely appeals the Veterans Court’s deci-
sion affirming the Board’s denial of service connection for
bilateral hearing loss.
D ISCUSSION
We have jurisdiction only “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 [Veterans] Court in making the deci-
sion. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). “Except to the extent that an
appeal . . . 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.” § 7292(d)(2).
On appeal, Mr. Taylor identifies five alleged errors for
review by this Court: (i) the hearing tests were improperly
administered and the VA failed to identify helpful test re-
sults in his claims file; (ii) the Veterans Court was biased
in favor of counsel for the VA; (iii) counsel for the VA led
the Veterans Court astray by citing to the wrong section of
the audiologist’s notes; (iv) the Veterans Court misread
several hearing test results as “20” decibels instead of “26”;
and (v) the Veterans Court failed to properly oversee the
Case: 24-1642 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 09/06/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

TAYLOR v. MCDONOUGH 4
VA because one or more lawyers who represent the VA are
also members of the Veterans Court Bar Association. Mr.
Taylor characterizes these alleged errors as both legal and
constitutional. In particular, Mr. Taylor argues that the
Veterans Court decision demonstrates improper entangle-
ment between the Veterans Court and the VA in violation
of separation of powers principles.
Most of Mr. Taylor’s arguments fall outside of our ju-
risdiction because they challenge factual determinations or
applications of law to fact. See § 7292(d)(2). We are not
permitted to reassess Mr. Taylor’s records as he requests.
Nor do we perceive a genuine constitutional issue in Mr.
Taylor’s appeal. The Veterans Court did not address or
rely on any constitutional issues. Mr. Taylor’s arguments
on appeal that he did not receive fair treatment at the Vet-
erans Court do not raise colorable constitutional concerns.
And we do not agree with Mr. Taylor that his case or his
allegations about the lawyers involve perceptible due pro-
cess concerns. Labeling arguments as constitutional does
not automatically confer jurisdiction. Helfer v. West, 174
F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed Cir. 1999). Therefore, we lack juris-
diction to consider Mr. Taylor’s appeal.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Taylor’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we dismiss this
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1642 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 09/06/2024

-- 4 of 4 --