Michael G. Boynton v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHAEL G. BOYNTON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-1830
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 21-6265, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: June 16, 2025
______________________
T HOMAS E.F. STRONG, Veterans Legal Advocacy Group,
Arlington, VA, argued for claimant-appellant. Also repre-
sented by J ENNIFER T RACY SHANNON H EALY , HAROLD
HAMILTON H OFFMAN, III, MEGAN EILEEN H OFFMAN, CLARE
MALINOWSKI.
MATTHEW J UDE CARHART , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.
Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, P ATRICIA M.
Case: 23-1830 Document: 73 Page: 1 Filed: 06/16/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

BOYNTON v. COLLINS 2
MCCARTHY , L OREN MISHA P REHEIM ; BRIAN D. G RIFFIN,
ANDREW J. STEINBERG, Office of General Counsel, United
States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before S TOLL and STARK, Circuit Judges, and G OLDBERG,
Chief District Judge.1
S TOLL , Circuit Judge.
Veteran Michael Boynton seeks review of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ (the “Veterans
Court”) affirmance of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ deci-
sion denying him a rating above 70% for his post-traumatic
stress disorder (“PTSD”) before January 12, 2018, and af-
ter June 25, 2020. Because we conclude Mr. Boynton’s ap-
peal constitutes a challenge to the factual matters decided
below, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal, Mr. Boynton argues that the Veterans
Court “legally erred when it held that the [Department of
Veterans Affairs (the “VA”)] did not have to consider any
evidence from a period not on appeal.” Appellant’s Br. 9
(emphasis removed). The VA rated Mr. Boynton’s PTSD as
70% disabling from April 3, 2013, to January 12, 2018;
100% disabling between January 13, 2018, and June 24,
2020; and 70% disabling after June 25, 2020. Mr. Boynton
sought 100% disability for the periods that the VA rated
his PTSD as 70% disabling. He contends that the Veterans
Court held the Board need not consider his April 2018
exam in assessing his PTSD rating because that exam per-
tained “to a period not at issue” on appeal. Appellant’s
Br. 10, 14. But the Veterans Court made no such holding.
1 Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg, Chief District
Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
Case: 23-1830 Document: 73 Page: 2 Filed: 06/16/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

BOYNTON v. COLLINS 3
Rather, the Veterans Court read the Board’s opinion as
indicating that the Board considered the April 2018 exam.
The Veterans Court explained that “the Board is presumed
to have considered all the evidence in the record and is not
required to discuss every piece of evidence found therein.”
Boynton v. McDonough, No. 21-6265, 2023 WL 355733,
at *1 (Vet. App. Jan. 23, 2023) (citing Newhouse v. Nichol-
son, 497 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Moreover, the
Veterans Court assessed whether the Board erred in
weighing this evidence. The court emphasized “a total dis-
ability rating contemplates extreme symptoms like persis-
tent hallucinations, spatial disorientation, and the
inability to remember one’s own name” and explained that,
“[w]hile Mr. Boynton identifies a handful of evidence and
symptoms that went unaddressed by the Board, he identi-
fies nothing that relates to the 100% rating level. . . . And
the Court can find no symptoms like those listed in the
100% rating anywhere in Mr. Boynton’s file.” Id. at *2 (ci-
tation omitted).
Mr. Boynton’s assertion that the Veterans Court held
that the Board need not consider the April 2018 medical
report misconstrues the Veterans Court’s analysis and
does not present a legal issue for consideration on appeal.
Rather, his appeal constitutes a challenge to factual mat-
ters decided below. We “have no jurisdiction to determine
whether in a particular case the application of the estab-
lished law to the facts at issue passed muster under the
clearly erroneous standard.” Lennox v. Principi, 353 F.3d
941, 946 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Veterans Court considered
the evidence Mr. Boynton identified and “discern[ed] no er-
ror in the Board’s treatment of this evidence or its finding
that a 70% rating for PTSD most nearly approximates the
veteran’s particular symptoms and level of impairment.”
Boynton, 2023 WL 355733, at *2. At its core, Mr. Boynton’s
challenge to the Veterans Court’s finding asks us to re-
weigh evidence on appeal, which we lack jurisdiction to do.
Case: 23-1830 Document: 73 Page: 3 Filed: 06/16/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

BOYNTON v. COLLINS 4
We have considered Mr. Boynton’s remaining argu-
ments, but we do not find them persuasive. For the forego-
ing reasons, we dismiss this appeal.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-1830 Document: 73 Page: 4 Filed: 06/16/2025

-- 4 of 4 --