United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

EDWARD AMEZQUITA, Claimant-Appellant

v.

DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2023-1975 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 21-7904, Judge Scott Laurer. ______________________

Decided: May 5, 2025 ______________________

JOHN D. NILES, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, ar- gued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by KENT A. EILER, The Law Office of Kent Eiler, Dubuque, IA.

EMMA E. BOND, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; CHRISTOPHER O. ADELOYE, EVAN SCOTT GRANT, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washing- ton, DC. Case: 23-1975 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 05/05/2025

2 AMEZQUITA v. COLLINS

______________________

Before PROST, LINN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PROST, Circuit Judge. Edward Amezquita appeals a final decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying service connection for his left shoulder disability. Amezquita v. McDonough, No. 21-7904, 2023 WL 2398057 (Vet. App. March 8, 2023) (“Decision”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. BACKGROUND I Congress instructs the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) to compensate U.S. veterans for injury or disease in- curred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110. In evaluating service-connection-disability claims, the VA presumes veterans “to have been in sound condition when examined, accepted, and enrolled for service.” Id. § 1111; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b). The VA may rebut this pre- sumption of soundness with “clear and unmistakable evi- dence” that a veteran’s “injury or disease existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such service.” 38 U.S.C. § 1111; see also Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The presumption of soundness, however, does not attach to claims for “defects, infirmities, or disorders noted at the time of the examina- tion, acceptance, and enrollment.” 38 U.S.C. § 1111. The VA evaluates claims for preexisting conditions noted upon service entry under the aggravation standard, where the veteran bears the burden of establishing in-service aggra- vation. See 38 U.S.C. § 1153; Wagner, 370 F.3d. at 1096. II Mr. Amezquita is a U.S. Navy veteran. Decision, 2023 WL 2398057, at *1. In October 2002, prior to his Case: 23-1975 Document: 52 Page: 3 Filed: 05/05/2025

AMEZQUITA v. COLLINS 3

service-entrance examination, he received a Bankart re- pair surgery on his left shoulder to repair a labral tear caused by a motor vehicle accident. J.A. 14. Eight months later, in June 2003, Mr. Amezquita underwent his service- entrance examination. J.A. 14. Under the “summary of defects and diagnoses” section of the entrance examination report, Mr. Amezquita’s medical examiner listed the Bankart repair surgery and that Mr. Amezquita was “com- pletely asymptomatic” with “no physical limitations.” J.A. 25. The medical examiner cleared Mr. Amezquita for service entry, and he served on active duty from July 2003 to March 2005. J.A. 11, 25. Two days before Mr. Amezquita’s separation from the U.S. Navy, the VA evaluated