Michael F. Shelton v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHAEL F. SHELTON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-2380
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-2754, Chief Judge Michael P.
Allen.
______________________
Decided: July 31, 2026
______________________
K AITLYN P EHRSON, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for
claimant-appellant. Also represented by D AVID MROZ,
T HOMAS ERIC SULLIVAN; J AMESON K YLE G ARDNER , Reston,
VA.
MATTHEW J UDE CARHART , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.
Case: 24-2380 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 07/31/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

SHELTON v. COLLINS 2
Also represented by P ATRICIA M. MCC ARTHY , CORINNE
ANNE N IOSI, YAAKOV ROTH ; T YRONE COLLIER, BRIAN D.
G RIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judge,
and K OVNER , District Judge.1
MOORE, Chief Judge.
Michael F. Shelton appeals a decision of the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a
Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denial of his applica-
tion for total disability based on individual unemployabil-
ity (TDIU). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Shelton served honorably in the U.S. Army from
1967 to 1969. J.A. 2040. In 2021, he applied for TDIU,
reporting he was too disabled to work. J.A. 1325–40.
Mr. Shelton indicated that he stopped working full-time in
September 2018. J.A. 1325. He listed his highest annual
earnings as $47,960 back in 2001. J.A. 1325–27. Under
the highest gross earnings per month, he listed $167,500.
J.A. 1326.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional of-
fice (RO) denied Mr. Shelton’s TDIU application. J.A. 44–
48. Thereafter, the Board denied him entitlement to TDIU.
J.A. 10–16. The Board determined Mr. Shelton had not
shown unemployability because VA medical records
showed he continued to work during the period of his ap-
peal to the Board. J.A. 11–15. The Board found Mr. Shel-
ton’s assertions that he stopped working in 2018 “less than
credible.” J.A. 14. The Board cited numerous records
1 Honorable Rachel P. Kovner, District Judge,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, sitting by designation.
Case: 24-2380 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 07/31/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

SHELTON v. COLLINS 3
where Mr. Shelton reported that he was working after
2018 to the VA medical personnel. See, e.g., J.A. 14 (citing
a VA treatment record from January 16, 2020 where
Mr. Shelton reported that “I work everyday”); id. (citing a
VA treatment record from July 16, 2020 where Mr. Shelton
reported that he “works every day at a Truck & Trailer re-
pair shop”); id. (citing a VA treatment record from January
28, 2021 where Mr. Shelton reported that he “[w]orks
daily”); id. (citing a VA treatment record from January 20,
2022 where Mr. Shelton reported no change in occupa-
tional status since his prior exam). The Veterans Court af-
firmed the Board’s denial. J.A. 2157–62. Mr. Shelton
appeals the denial of his TDIU claim to this court.
Our jurisdiction to review Veterans Court decisions is
limited by statute. Goodman v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d 1383,
1385 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Absent a constitutional issue, we
“may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination,
or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the
facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
Much of Mr. Shelton’s appeal asks this court to reweigh
the evidence, which we do not possess jurisdiction to do.
Mr. Shelton also argues the Veterans Court misinterpreted
38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) by upholding the Board’s reliance on his
2001 income despite the Board’s failure to explain his in-
come’s relevance.2 Appellant Br. 17, 19. The sufficiency of
the Board’s explanation is outside our jurisdiction because
it necessarily involves the application of law or regulation
to the facts of Mr. Shelton’s case. See Cook v. Principi, 353
2 Though Mr. Shelton argued in his briefs that
38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) should be interpreted to preclude the
Board from relying on the 2001 income evidence at all, Ap-
pellant Br. 15–21, during oral argument his counsel con-
ceded the Board could rely on the information if it
explained the relevance. E.g., Oral Arg. at 5:17–29, 7:54–
8:05.
Case: 24-2380 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 07/31/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

SHELTON v. COLLINS 4
F.3d 937, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Veterans Court did not
interpret 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) but instead applied the law to
the facts of this case. Thus, review of this issue is beyond
our jurisdiction.
Finally, Mr. Shelton contends the Veterans Court
erred by holding the Board provided adequate reasons or
bases for its decision under 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1). Appel-
lant Br. 21–24. We have repeatedly held that this court
lacks jurisdiction to consider such reasons-or-bases chal-
lenges as they “unavoidably require a review of the Veter-
ans Court’s application of law to the facts.” Cook, 353 F.3d
at 940.
CONCLUSION
Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Shelton’s appeal,
we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2380 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 07/31/2026

-- 4 of 4 --