Kenneth B. Sylvain v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 J ONES , III, J B Jones III LLC, Lafayette, LA,
argued for claimant-appellant.
J OSHUA D AVID T ULLY , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also
represented by ERIC P. BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
BRETT SHUMATE; C HRISTOPHER O. A DELOYE, BRIAN D.
G RIFFIN, D EREK SCADDEN, Office of General Counsel,
Case: 25-1164 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 04/28/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

SYLVAIN v. COLLINS 2
United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washing-
ton, DC.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE and C UNNINGHAM ,
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. D ISCUSSION
“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: 2 Filed: 04/28/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

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: 3 Filed: 04/28/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

SYLVAIN v. COLLINS 4
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.
Case: 25-1164 Document: 34 Page: 4 Filed: 04/28/2026

-- 4 of 4 --