Gabrielle E. Johnson-Arizmendi v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

21-1022Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit3 ago 2022

Testo completo

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GABRIELLE E. JOHNSON-ARIZMENDI,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2021-1022
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-1647, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: August 3, 2022
______________________
G ABRIELLE E. J OHNSON-ARIZMENDI, San Ysidro, CA,
pro se.
N ATHANAEL YALE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
J EFFREY B. CLARK, SR., T ARA K. HOGAN, R OBERT EDWARD
K IRSCHMAN, J R.
______________________
Case: 21-1022 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 08/03/2022

-- 1 of 4 --

JOHNSON- ARIZMENDI v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, P ROST and STOLL , Circuit
Judges.*
P ER CURIAM .
Gabrielle E. Johnson-Arizmendi appeals a decision of
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims af-
firming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of her re-
quest for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC)
Benefits. Because we lack jurisdiction to hear Ms. John-
son-Arizmendi’s appeal, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Johnson-Arizmendi’s late husband, Edward Ariz-
mendi, served on active duty from July 1964 to September
1966. S. Appx. 4. A private physician diagnosed Mr. Ariz-
mendi with PTSD in May 1995, and the VA diagnosed him
with anxiety and major depressive disorder in October
1995. S. Appx. 10. Whether Mr. Arizmendi’s psychiatric
conditions were service connected was never adjudicated
during his lifetime. S. Appx. 4. In 1999, however, the So-
cial Security Administration (SSA) posthumously granted
his claim for disability benefits due to chronic major de-
pression with PTSD. S. Appx. 29.
Mr. Arizmendi’s cause of death was “assault with a cut-
ting instrument.” S. Appx. 4. Ms. Johnson-Arizmendi filed
a claim for DIC benefits, arguing the assault was attribut-
able to Mr. Arizmendi’s PTSD. S. Appx. 29–30. The Re-
gional Office (RO) denied her claim, and she appealed to
the Board. S. Appx. at 30. Ms. Johnson-Arizmendi testi-
fied before the Board that her husband was murdered by a
* Circuit Judge Hughes, originally assigned to this
panel, did not participate in deciding this case. Circuit
Judge Hughes was replaced by Circuit Judge Stoll pursu-
ant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.11.
Case: 21-1022 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 08/03/2022

-- 2 of 4 --

JOHNSON- ARIZMENDI v. MCDONOUGH 3
man who thought Mr. Arizmendi “was with” his wife. Id.
She further testified that his murder was due to his PTSD.
The Board affirmed the denial of her claim. Ms. Johnson-
Arizmendi appealed. Id. The Veterans Court vacated and
remanded, holding that the Board erred in not assisting
Ms. Johnson-Arizmendi to obtain her husband’s SSA rec-
ords and not providing an adequate statement of reasons
for rejecting Ms. Johnson-Arizmendi’s testimony. S. Appx.
30–31. The Board then remanded to the RO for additional
fact finding. S. Appx. 24–26.
The RO requested Mr. Arizmendi’s records from the
SSA, which informed the RO that no such records existed.
S. Appx. 6. The RO notified the Board and indicated that
the appeal should proceed. Id. The Board found that the
RO used reasonable efforts to obtain the SSA records and
therefore satisfied its duty to assist Ms. Johnson-Ariz-
mendi. S. Appx. 6–7.
The Board also found that, even if Mr. Arizmendi had
a service-connected psychiatric disability, there was no ev-
idence it caused or materially contributed to his death. S.
Appx. 16. By Ms. Johnson-Arizmendi’s own account of her
husband’s demise, Mr. Arizmendi was escorting a dis-
tressed woman home when he encountered her husband,
who evidently believed Mr. Arizmendi was “with” his wife
and proceeded to kidnap and murder Mr. Arizmendi. S.
Appx. 17. The Board found it unclear how Ms. Johnson-
Arizmendi, who was not present for the alleged kidnapping
and murder, had firsthand knowledge of her husband’s
death. The Board also explained that this account did not
address how Mr. Arizmendi’s alleged disability contributed
to his death. Accordingly, it denied the claim.
Ms. Johnson-Arizmendi appealed to the Veterans
Court, asserting the Board: (1) failed to obtain Mr. Ariz-
mendi’s SSA records and (2) improperly discounted her lay
statements. The Veterans Court affirmed, explaining that
further efforts to obtain the SSA records were not required
Case: 21-1022 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 08/03/2022

-- 3 of 4 --

JOHNSON- ARIZMENDI v. MCDONOUGH 4
and that the Board thoroughly considered Ms. Johnson-
Arizmendi’s testimony and provided adequate reasoning
for its denial of benefits. S. Appx. 2–3. Ms. Johnson-Ariz-
mendi appeals.
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction over decisions of the Veterans Court is
limited. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we may review “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
decision.” Except with respect to constitutional issues, 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).
We lack jurisdiction over Ms. Johnson-Arizmendi’s ap-
peal. Ms. Johnson-Arizmendi concedes that her appeal
does not involve the validity or interpretation of a statute
or regulation. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 1. Nor does it
raise any constitutional issues. Instead, Ms. Johnson-Ariz-
mendi essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence and find
that her husband had a service-connected disability that
caused or materially contributed to his death. Id. at 2. We
lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s contrary fact finding.
We therefore dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 21-1022 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 08/03/2022

-- 4 of 4 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.