Sylvain v. Collins

Case: 25-1164 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 04/28/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ KENNETH B. SYLVAIN, Claimant-Appellant v. DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2025-1164 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 23-5339, Judge Grant Jaquith. ______________________ Decided: April 28, 2026 ______________________ J. BRYAN JONES, III, J B Jones III LLC, Lafayette, LA, argued for claimant-appellant.

JOSHUA DAVID TULLY, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE; CHRISTOPHER O. ADELOYE, BRIAN D.

GRIFFIN, DEREK SCADDEN, Office of General Counsel, Case: 25-1164 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 04/28/2026

2 SYLVAIN v. COLLINS

United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washing- ton, DC. ______________________ Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.

Kenneth Sylvain appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), affirming a 2023 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision. Sylvain v. McDonough, No. 23-5339, 2024 WL 4343483, at *1 (Vet. App. Sept. 30, 2024) (“Deci- sion”). In its 2023 decision, the Board declined to revise or reverse a 2002 Board decision denying service connec- tion for a lower back condition. J.A. 15. We dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND Mr. Sylvain is a veteran who served on active duty in the Air Force from March 1969 to March 1973, as well as the Navy from January 1976 to January 1978. Decision at *1. The Board denied service connection for a back condition in July 2002, and that denial was not appealed by Mr. Sylvain. Id. at *3. In 2017, Mr. Sylvain requested to reopen his claim, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) regional office granted service connection from August 16, 2017. Id. In May 2022, Mr. Sylvain moved that the 2002 Board decision contained clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”). Id. In May 2023, the Board found that the CUE motion was “essentially a disagree- ment as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated,” which did not support a finding of CUE. Id.; J.A. 14.

Mr. Sylvain appealed to the Veterans Court, which af- firmed the 2023 Board decision. Decision at *6.

II. DISCUSSION “This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court is limited.” Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d Case: 25-1164 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 04/28/2026

SYLVAIN v. COLLINS 3

1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We have authority to review a Veterans Court decision “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 there- of . . . that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in mak- ing the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); Smith v. Collins, 130 F.4th 1337, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2025). However, except with respect to constitutional issues, we “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a chal- lenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

Mr. Sylvain does not raise any challenge over which we can exercise jurisdiction, as he does not allege any legal error by the Veterans Court. For our court to ad- dress a legal question on appeal, “[t]he Veterans Court must have made a determination on the legal issue pre- sented to us by the appellant, either making a ‘decision’ on a ‘rule of law’ or ‘relying on’ a challenged statute or regulation or its interpretation.” Smith, 130 F.4th at 1343 (cleaned up). This determination may be “ex- press” or “implicit in the sense that the Veterans Court’s result might be altered by adopting the legal position pressed by appellant to this court.” Id. First, Mr. Sylvain contends that “the Board, in July 2002, improperly imposed a ‘trauma’ requirement in order for the veteran to demonstrate that he had an injury in service under 38 C.F.R. [§] 3.303.” Appellant’s Br. 9; id. at 9–11. The Veterans Court rejected this argument, noting that it could not “conduct a plenary review of the merits” of the 2002 Board decision, and that Mr. Sylvain “fail[ed] to point to any specific defect” in the 2023 Board decision on appeal. Decision at *4 (internal citation omitted). The Veterans Court also did not interpret 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 to impose a “trauma requirement,” but rather characterized the 2023 Board decision as explain- ing that “the July 2002 Board decision weighed the evi- dence and provided reasons consistent with the law at the Case: 25-1164 Document: 34 Page: 4 Filed: 04/28/2026

4 SYLVAIN v. COLLINS time to support a finding that [Mr. Sylvain’s] lay state- ments were not credible.” Decision at *5; see J.A. 13–14 (2023 Board decision); J.A. 59–62 (2002 Board decision).

We agree with this characterization and lack jurisdiction to review either “factual determination[s]” or “challenge[s] to a law or regulation as applied to the facts” of this case. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

Second, Mr. Sylvain argues that the Board erred in 2002 by failing to cite independent medical evidence when it “rejected” three nexus opinions connecting Mr. Sylvain’s back condition to injuries sustained in service. Appel- lant’s Br. 13; id. at 11–15. Mr. Sylvain cites two Veterans Court cases, Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78 (1990), and Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991), overruled by Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998), for the proposition that the Board “must rely on independent medical evidence” when “making medical conclusions.”

Appellant’s Br. 12–13. The Veterans Court distinguished both cases and concluded that the 2002 Board decision “did not make a medical determination.” Decision at *5.

Instead, the Veterans Court agreed with the 2023 Board that the 2002 Board properly applied “the law in effect at the time” that “the Board may reject a medical opinion based on other contradictory facts in the record.” Id.; see J.A. 62–63. Mr. Sylvain fails to raise any objections to the Veterans Court’s legal interpretations. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Sylvain’s appeal.

III. CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Sylvain’s remaining argu- ments and find that none of the arguments raises a non- frivolous issue over which we can assert jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss.

DISMISSED COSTS No costs.