Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02264/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02264-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Robert G. Thornton
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERT G. THORNTON,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-2264

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-2059, Judge Coral Wong 

Pietsch.

______________________ 

Decided: November 8, 2016

______________________ 

ROBERT G. THORNTON, Corona, CA, pro se.

SARAH CHOI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., ALLISON 

KIDD-MILLER; Y. KEN LEE, MEGHAN ALPHONSO, Office of 

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC.

Case: 16-2264 Document: 18-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2016
2 THORNTON v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before MOORE, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Robert G. Thornton appeals from a decision by the 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) 

denying his motion to vacate its prior decision. Because 

we lack jurisdiction over the issues Mr. Thornton raises 

on appeal, we dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

This case is Mr. Thornton’s third appeal stemming 

from a claim he filed for service-connected disability 

benefits. In 2007, Mr. Thornton, an Army veteran, sought 

benefits for a psychiatric condition, hearing loss, and 

tinnitus. After a series of decisions relating to these 

claims, on June 4, 2014, a Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Decision Review Officer (“DRO”) awarded Mr. Thornton (1) a 

100% disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder 

effective March 1, 2007; (2) a 40% rating for bilateral 

hearing loss effective March 1, 2007 and a 50% rating 

effective May 17, 2010; and (3) a 10% rating for tinnitus 

effective March 1, 2007.1 In a Statement of the Case 

issued the same day, the DRO denied Mr. Thornton’s 

request for entitlement to effective dates prior to March 1, 

2007 for all three conditions.

 

1 Mr. Thornton’s first appeal to this court concerned 

a petition for a writ of mandamus, filed before the DRO’s 

June 4, 2014 award, alleging delay in granting him benefits. We affirmed the Veterans Court’s denial of 

Mr. Thornton’s petition on the basis that mandamus was 

not the only form of relief available. Thornton v. McDonald, 597 F. App’x 641 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Thornton I”). 

Case: 16-2264 Document: 18-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2016
THORNTON v. MCDONALD 3

On January 28, 2015, Mr. Thornton filed an appeal of 

the June 4, 2014 DRO decision, requesting the VA regional office (“RO”) forward his appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals (“Board”). While that appeal was pending, 

Mr. Thornton petitioned for a writ of mandamus seeking, 

in relevant part, that the Veterans Court compel the RO 

to forward his appeal to the Board. On June 12, 2015, the 

RO informed Mr. Thornton that his appeal was untimely

and provided instructions regarding how to appeal the 

untimeliness decision. On July 30, 2015, the Veterans 

Court denied Mr. Thornton’s petition for mandamus (“the 

July 30, 2015 Decision”), reasoning he had adequate 

alternative means to relief as outlined in the RO’s instructions regarding how to appeal the untimeliness 

determination. Mr. Thornton appealed the July 30, 2015 

Decision to our court, which we dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction in Thornton v. McDonald, 626 F. App’x 1007 

(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Thornton II”).2

Following our dismissal in Thornton II, Mr. Thornton 

filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion in 

the Veterans Court, requesting that the Veterans Court 

vacate the July 30, 2015 Decision for fraud on the court. 

The Veterans Court denied the motion on May 25, 2016. 

Mr. Thornton timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court 

is statutorily limited. We may review challenges to the 

“validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation 

thereof” and may “interpret constitutional and statutory 

provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a 

decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). We may not review chal-

 

2 Mr. Thornton filed a motion to disqualify and 

recuse the panel of judges in Thornton II. We deny the 

motion as it pertains to the present case.

Case: 16-2264 Document: 18-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/08/2016
4 THORNTON v. MCDONALD

lenges to factual determinations or to the application of a 

law or regulation to the facts of a particular case unless 

the appeal presents a constitutional issue. Id.

§§ 7292(d)(1)–(2). 

Mr. Thornton’s appeal asks us to determine whether 

the Veterans Court properly applied Rule 60(b) to the 

facts of his claim, alleging the July 30, 2015 Decision 

relied on “fraudulent facts.” He does not challenge the 

validity of any statute or regulation or the Veterans 

Court’s interpretation thereof. Nor does Mr. Thornton’s 

appeal present a constitutional issue. Accordingly, we do 

not have jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s 

denial of Mr. Thornton’s Rule 60(b) motion. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Thornton’s appeal is 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-2264 Document: 18-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/08/2016