Evans v. Collins

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedJuly 25, 2025
Docket23-2356
StatusUnpublished

This text of Evans v. Collins (Evans v. Collins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Evans v. Collins, (Fed. Cir. 2025).

Opinion

Case: 23-2356 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 07/25/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JOSHUA EVANS, Claimant-Appellant

v.

DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2023-2356 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 21-1242, Judge Joseph L. Toth. ______________________

Decided: July 25, 2025 ______________________

KENNETH DOJAQUEZ, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.

MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre- sented by PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, RICHARD STEPHEN HUBER, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. Case: 23-2356 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 07/25/2025

______________________

Before LOURIE and PROST, Circuit Judges, and BUMB, Chief District Judge. 1 PER CURIAM. Joshua Evans appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Ap- peals (“the Board”). Evans v. McDonough, No. 21-1242, 2023 WL 3671133 (Vet. App. May 26, 2023); J.A. 19–23 (Board Decision). On appeal to this court, Evans princi- pally argues that the Veterans Court erred in affirming the Board’s decision that he did not implicitly raise an earlier claim for total disability due to unemployability (“TDIU”) under Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). We lack jurisdiction over this issue because it involves the applica- tion of the legal standard stated in Rice to the facts of this case. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) (providing that we lack juris- diction over “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case”). We therefore dismiss. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.

1 Honorable Renée M. Bumb, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sterling T. Rice v. Eric K. Shinseki
22 Vet. App. 447 (Veterans Claims, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Evans v. Collins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-collins-cafc-2025.