## Facts

- Nathan King, a veteran, received service-connected disability compensation for residuals of left knee surgery and right knee arthritis.
- King later sought service connection for back and bilateral hip disabilities on both direct and secondary theories (secondary to the knee conditions).
- Service records reflected no in-service treatment for back or hip problems during active duty (1973–1974).
- A 2000 VA examination diagnosed minimal degenerative joint disease of the hips and lumbosacral spine and attributed the conditions to age rather than the knee disabilities.
- A private physician supported King’s position that the knee problems contributed to his back and hip conditions.
- At a Board hearing, King testified about post-service knee instability, back pain, and an altered gait with compensatory weight-shifting.
- King’s wife submitted a statement describing observed physical and functional changes associated with King’s knee problems and pain.

## Issues

1. Whether, under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s affirmance of the Board’s weighing of lay testimony against medical evidence.
2. Whether the Veterans Court committed reviewable legal error by “discounting” lay testimony regarding causation or aggravation of King’s back and hip disabilities.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court held that King’s argument, properly characterized, challenged only the evidentiary weight assigned to lay testimony versus medical opinions.
- The court found the Veterans Court had considered the lay evidence and did not apply an incorrect legal standard that would create a reviewable question of law.
- Because the dispute was factual (weight and credibility of evidence), § 7292 barred Federal Circuit review.

## Legal Principles

- The Federal Circuit’s review of Veterans Court decisions under 38 U.S.C. § 7292 is limited to constitutional questions and issues of statutory or regulatory interpretation.
- The Federal Circuit may not review challenges to factual determinations, including credibility findings and the weight assigned to evidence.
- A claimant cannot create jurisdiction by framing a disagreement with evidence-weighing as a legal error when the lower tribunal considered the evidence and applied the correct legal framework.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal amounted to a factual dispute over how the Board weighed lay testimony against medical evidence, not a reviewable legal question about the governing standard for lay evidence.


King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012)