Background
Army veteran Anthony Polich received service-connected disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder, ultimately rated at 50%. The Department of Veterans Affairs later granted service connection for residuals of a traumatic brain injury but assigned a 0% rating. Medical examiners concluded that Polich’s memory problems were unlikely attributable solely to his TBI because they reportedly began decades after the injury, and one examiner could not separate the effects of PTSD and TBI without speculation.
Because the symptoms could not be clearly separated, the VA evaluated their combined effects under the diagnostic criteria providing the greater benefit. It retained the 50% PTSD rating rather than assigning the 40% rating that the symptoms would warrant under the TBI criteria. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals upheld that determination, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit dismissed Polich’s appeal because his arguments raised factual disputes and applications of law to fact, not legal questions within the court’s jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). The court rejected Polich’s characterization of the Veterans Court’s decision as an interpretation of 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8045. It concluded that the Veterans Court had merely applied the regulation to the evidentiary record.
Whether Polich’s memory impairment could be separated from his PTSD was a factual question beyond the Federal Circuit’s review. The same was true of his assertion that the Board had found his memory impairment resulted exclusively from TBI; the Veterans Court determined that the Board made no such finding. Any challenge to the diagnostic code selected for his symptoms likewise involved an unreviewable application of law to fact.
Key Takeaways
- The Federal Circuit generally cannot review factual determinations or applications of law to fact in veterans-benefits appeals.
- When manifestations of PTSD and TBI cannot be clearly separated, VA may assign one evaluation under the diagnostic criteria that best assess the combined impairment.
- Recasting disagreement with the evidentiary record as regulatory interpretation does not create Federal Circuit jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The nonprecedential decision underscores the narrow scope of Federal Circuit review in veterans-benefits cases. A claimant must present a genuine legal or constitutional issue; disputes over symptom attribution, the Board’s factual findings, or the application of diagnostic criteria to a particular record ordinarily fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.