Lynn v. DVA

Case: 26-1095 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 07/16/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

DANIEL JAMES LYNN,

Petitioner v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent ______________________

2026-1095 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. SF-0714-17-0702-C-1.

______________________ Decided: July 16, 2026 ______________________

DANIEL JAMES LYNN, Curlew, WA, pro se.

NELSON KUAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by STEVEN MICHAEL MAGER, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE.

______________________

Before PROST, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. 2 LYNN v. DVA PER CURIAM.

Daniel Lynn, appearing pro se, petitions for review of a final decision 1 from the Merit Systems and Protection Board (Board) denying Mr. Lynn’s petition for enforcement of his settlement agreement (Agreement) with the Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs (VA). Lynn v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. SF-0714-17-0702-C-1, 2025 WL 2170239 (M.S.P.B. July 21, 2025) (Decision) (SAppx 1–29). 2 Be- cause the Agreement unambiguously states that the settle- ment payment must be paid to Mr. Lynn (and not his designated representative), we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In 2017, the VA removed Mr. Lynn from his position of Police Officer. Decision, 2025 WL 2170239, at 1. Mr. Lynn subsequently sought Board review of his removal. In 2023, Mr. Lynn and the VA executed a settlement agreement re- solving the dispute underlying the Board proceedings. See id. at 2; SAppx 34–37 (Agreement).

The Agreement “constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties and fully supersedes any and all prior . . . understandings pertaining to the subject matter.” SAppx 35. The Agreement refers to Mr. Lynn as “Appel- lant” and Section 2(1) requires the VA to pay “Appellant” a lump sum settlement payment. Id. at 34. In turn, Mr. Lynn agreed, among other things, that he would “not be returned to his former position” at the VA. Id. at 35. To LYNN v. DVA 3 receive his settlement payment, Mr. Lynn also agreed in Section 2(2) to: provide the Agency with a completed VA Form 10091 and any necessary paperwork to complete the vendorization process for payment within ten (10) business days from the date on which the final signature on the agreement, completed and signed by Brook Beesley, appellant’s authorized repre- sentative with the exception of those which are marked OPTIONAL and Mr. Beesley need not com- plete, if he chooses not to do so.

Id. at 34–35. Mr. Beesley is Mr. Lynn’s non-attorney rep- resentative. Decision, 2025 WL 2170239, at 6.

The VA denied the payment request submitted by Mr. Beesley because the form he submitted listed “BLB Federal Labor Mgmt. Consulting” under “PAYEE/VENDOR NAME” instead of Mr. Lynn. Id.; see also SAppx 38. According to the VA, the Agreement re- quired that Mr. Lynn be listed as the payee. See Decision, 2025 WL 2170239, at 5.

Mr. Lynn petitioned the Board for enforcement and ar- gued that the VA materially breached the Agreement. See id. at 22. The Board denied the petition, concluding that the Agreement’s payment terms were unambiguous. Id. at 15. The Board explained that “Appellant,” when used in the Agreement, refers to Mr. Lynn. Id. The Board also found that Mr. Lynn materially breached the Agreement in failing to provide Form 10091 with his own name as the payee. 3 Id. at 16–17.

Mr. Lynn timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

A settlement agreement is a contract, and its construc- tion is a question of law we review de novo. Lutz v. U.S. Postal Serv., 485 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). “If a contract provision is clear and unambigu- ous, the court may not resort to extrinsic evidence to inter- pret it.” Premier Off. Complex of Parma, LLC v. United States, 916 F.3d 1006, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omit- ted). And when contract language is “unambiguous on its face, our inquiry ends and the plain language of the Agree- ment controls.” Id. at 1011–12 (citation omitted).

Mr. Lynn argues that the Agreement unambiguously states that the payee of the settlement payment may be Mr. Beesley. See Pet’r’s Informal Br. 8–9. In particular, he argues that because Section 2(2) of the Agreement allows Mr. Beesley to “complete[] and sign[]” the “vendorization paperwork,” this unambiguously means that Mr. Beesley may be listed as the payee on VA Form 10091. Id.

The Agreement here, however, lacks any statement to that effect. In fact, it states the opposite. The Agreement lists Mr. Lynn as the “Appellant.” SAppx 34. And Section 2(1) of the Agreement states that the VA “will pay Appel- lant a lump sum.” Id. These provisions unambiguously specify that the VA must pay Mr. Lynn the settlement pay- ment. Even though the Agreement specifies that Mr. Bees- ley will complete and sign the vendor paperwork, nothing addition, the VA also “remains open” to executing an ad- dendum to the Agreement to allow direct payment to Mr. Beesley, but Mr. Lynn explained below that he was un- willing to do that too. Id. LYNN v. DVA 5 in the Agreement indicates that the VA may pay the settle- ment payment directly to Mr. Beesley or any entity other than Mr. Lynn.

Mr. Lynn argues that we should consider extrinsic evi- dence—a settlement agreement between the VA and a third party—to interpret the disputed Agreement terms. See Pet’r’s Informal Br. 9. We cannot consider extrinsic ev- idence, however, to interpret or modify otherwise unambig- uous contract language, even if it is relevant to a party’s “course of dealing,” as Mr. Lynn suggests. See Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. United States, 366 F.3d 1360, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Pet’r’s Informal Br. 9. We there- fore agree with the Board’s interpretation of the Agree- ment.

We are unconvinced by Mr. Lynn’s remaining argu- ments. Mr. Lynn asserts that the Board improperly cred- ited the VA’s post-hoc rationalizations for why it refused to accept the form submitted by Mr. Beesley. Pet’r’s Informal Br. 11. That argument is irrelevant to our analysis because the Board found, and we agree, that the Agreement lan- guage unambiguously resolves the parties’ dispute. Deci- sion, 2025 WL 2170239, at 15. Likewise, Mr. Lynn’s suggestion that the VA violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing cannot prevail, see Pet’r’s Informal Br. 9, be- cause the VA’s compliance with the unambiguous terms of the Agreement cannot violate that duty. See Scott Timber Co. v. United States, 692 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Lynn’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

AFFIRMED COSTS

No costs.