Milan v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs

421 Fed. Appx. 967, 421 F. App'x 967, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10864
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedMay 25, 2011
Docket2009-7121
StatusUnpublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 421 Fed. Appx. 967 (Milan v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs) 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
Milan v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs, 421 Fed. Appx. 967, 421 F. App'x 967, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10864 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Opinion

ON MOTION

RADER, Chief Judge.

ORDER

The appellant moves without opposition to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand for further proceedings.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Veterans Claims more than 120 days after the Board of Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in his case. That court dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the 120-day appeal period established by 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) for seeking review of Board of Veterans’ Appeals decisions is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. The appellant sought this court’s review.

This court stayed the briefing schedule in this appeal pending the United States Supreme Court’s review of our decision in Henderson v. Shinseki, 589 F.3d 1201 (Fed.Cir.2009) (en banc) (affirming Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that period to appeal to that court is not subject to equitable tolling). In Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011), the Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision and concluded that the 120-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences. Because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in concluding that the appeal deadline established by § 7266(a) is jurisdictional, we vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.

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

Related

William C. Rickett v. Robert A. McDonald
27 Vet. App. 240 (Veterans Claims, 2015)
William Rickett v. Eric K. Shinseki
26 Vet. App. 210 (Veterans Claims, 2013)
Kenneth B. Mason v. Eric K. Shinseki
25 Vet. App. 83 (Veterans Claims, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
421 Fed. Appx. 967, 421 F. App'x 967, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milan-v-dept-of-veterans-affairs-cafc-2011.