NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SAMUEL BOLDEN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2018-1827

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 16-4165, Judge Michael P. Allen.

______________________ 

Decided: August 10, 2018

______________________ 

SAMUEL BOLDEN, Tampa, FL, pro se. 

 KRISTIN MCGRORY, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by TARA K. HOGAN, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN,

JR., CHAD A. READLER; CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Y. KEN 

LEE, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 
2 BOLDEN v. WILKIE

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and STOLL,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. Bolden appeals an order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a 

Board of Veterans Appeals (“the Board”) decision denying 

service connection for his right ankle disability. The 

Veterans Court found that Mr. Bolden had not submitted 

new and material evidence sufficient to re-open his claim 

for service connection. Based on this reasoning, the 

Veterans Court ultimately concluded that the Board’s 

error in failing to explicitly discuss Mr. Bolden’s new 

evidence of a prior ankle injury during service was harmless error because that evidence, while new, was not 

material. For the reasons set forth below, this court 

concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to hear Mr. Bolden’s 

appeal challenging the Veterans Court decision. 

I 

Mr. Bolden served on active duty in the Army from 

1997 to 1999. He suffered a right ankle injury during a 

football game in October 1998 and wore a cast for four 

weeks as a result. In an August 1999 medical exam, and 

again subsequently in his separation exam only one 

month later, Mr. Bolden indicated that he was not experiencing issues with his lower extremities. Ten years 

following his departure from service, Mr. Bolden filed 

claims for service connection for several conditions, including one for a right ankle disability. The Department 

of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) accordingly provided Mr. Bolden with a medical exam. 

The examiner determined that it was less likely than 

not that Mr. Bolden’s chronic right ankle condition resulted from his service in the Army. The examiner’s rationale 

was based in part on the fact that his in-service treatment 
BOLDEN v. WILKIE 3

reports indicated that he was not suffering from a chronic 

right ankle condition at the time. Based on this report 

and the other existing evidence in the record, the VA 

denied Mr. Bolden’s claim for service connection. In its 

decision, the VA acknowledged Mr. Bolden’s in-service 

ankle injury, but found no nexus between that injury and 

his contemporaneous right ankle condition. Mr. Bolden 

did not appeal this decision, and it became final.

In 2012, Mr. Bolden sought to reopen this claim by asserting evidence that he had actually injured his right 

ankle during a training exercise one year prior, in 1997, 

and then aggravated the injury during the aforementioned football game in 1998. The VA denied his request 

to reopen the claim, finding that the evidence of his prior 

ankle injury was not material to whether a nexus existed 

between his current ankle condition and his in-service 

ankle injury. On appeal, the Board affirmed this finding, 

concluding that the evidence of a prior right ankle injury 

was merely cumulative because it only served to further 

demonstrate an in-service ankle injury, but again was not 

material because it did not speak to any nexus with the 

current ankle condition.

On further appeal, during which Mr. Bolden was represented by counsel, the Veterans Court found that the 

Board erred by failing to mention the evidence of the 

earlier injury in 1997. The Veterans Court concluded, 

however, that this error was harmless because it did not 

disrupt the Board’s rationale for denying serviceconnection. Specifically, the Board found that there was 

no evidence of a nexus between the in-service right ankle 

injury and the post-service chronic ankle condition, largely due to the intervening medical examination that found 

no chronic ankle condition and an unlikelihood of a connection. The evidence of the prior 1997 ankle injury, the 

Veterans Court reasoned, was therefore new but not 

material. Specifically, the evidence of the 1997 injury 

only served to further establish that there was an in-
4 BOLDEN v. WILKIE

service right ankle injury, a fact which had already been 

established by the evidence of the 1998 incident. Thus, 

according to the Veterans Court, the evidence did not 

serve to establish a connection between the in-service 

ankle injuries and the later ankle condition, given the 

medical reports that took place in the intervening time. 

The Veterans Court entered judgment on January 10, 

2018, and Mr. Bolden timely appealed to this court.

II

Unless there is a constitutional issue raised, this 

court’s jurisdiction is deliberately limited by statute to 

reviewing decisions by the Veterans Court regarding the 

interpretation of a law, or the validity of a law. 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292. This court specifically cannot review findings of 

fact, including the sufficiency of evidence, or the application of legal standards to those facts. See, e.g., Stillwell v. 

Brown, 46 F.3d 1111, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the context of the application of legal standards, the court’s 

review is limited to whether the Veterans Court employed 

the proper standard, to the extent that doing so involved 

an interpretation of a statute or regulation. Id.

Mr. Bolden appeals the Veterans Court determination 

that he had not presented new and material evidence 

sufficient to reopen his claim for service connection for a 

right ankle disability. Mr. Bolden’s informal brief can be 

construed as arguing that the evidence he presented 

demonstrates that his right ankle injury during the 

football game in 1998 was a direct result of his original 

injury in 1997, and that he should therefore be granted 

the benefit of the doubt that his right ankle condition is 

chronic in nature and therefore service-connected. This 

court cannot review the evidence presented by Mr. Bolden, or whether it presents sufficiently material information to substantiate his claims; those are legal 

conclusions based on factual analysis of the evidence that 
BOLDEN v. WILKIE 5

specifically falls outside of this court’s jurisdiction. Stillwell, 46 F.3d at 1113.

Mr. Bolden does not challenge or raise arguments regarding the Veterans Court’s interpretation of the rules 

governing service connection, or those governing new and 

material evidence. Rather, Mr. Bolden asks us to review 

the materiality of the evidence he presented to the lower 

court, which is a task we are not authorized to undertake.

To the extent that Mr. Bolden challenges the Veterans 

Court’s determination that the Board committed harmless 

error in failing to directly discuss Mr. Bolden’s 1997 right 

ankle injury, this court’s jurisdiction would be limited to 

reviewing whether the Veterans Court applied the proper 

standard for prejudicial error as prescribed by statute. 

Id.; see also 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b). Mr. Bolden, however, 

does not appear to be challenging the Veterans Court’s 

interpretation of prejudicial error standards in the statute.

In conclusion, we do not have jurisdiction to review 

Mr. Bolden’s appeal challenging the Veterans Court’s 

judgment on the materiality of the evidence that he 

presented to reopen his claim for service connection for 

his chronic right ankle condition. This appeal is therefore 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

The parties shall bear their own costs.