Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07064/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07064-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas R. Helm
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

THOMAS R. HELM,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7064

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-3347, Judge Robert N. Davis.

______________________ 

Decided: August 13, 2015

______________________ 

THOMAS R. HELM, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

JESSICA R. TOPLIN, 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.,

SCOTT D. AUSTIN; Y. KEN LEE, LARA EILHARDT, MARTIE 

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

______________________ 

Case: 15-7064 Document: 19-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/13/2015
2 HELM v. MCDONALD

Before LOURIE, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Thomas Helm seeks review of a decision of 

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”) in Helm v. Gibson, No. 13-3347 (Vet. 

App. June. 11, 2014) (“Helm I”) (Resp’t’s App. 1–3), dismissing his appeal as untimely. For the reasons set forth 

below, this court affirms. 

I. BACKGROUND

Statement of Facts and Procedural Posture

In a decision dated and mailed July 24, 2002, the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denied Mr. Helm’s 

claims for entitlement to service connection for hypercholesterolemia and pancreatitis (“Board Decision”).1 Almost 

eleven years after the Board mailed the decision, in a 

notice dated May 6, 2013, Mr. Helm filed a motion of 

reconsideration to the Board, claiming that “procedural 

errors [were] involved in [his] case.” Resp’t’s App. 32. On 

September 16, 2013, Deputy Vice Chairman of the Board, 

David C. Spikler, denied Mr. Helm’s motion, stating that 

although his motion for reconsideration “ha[d] been 

carefully reviewed . . . [it] does not demonstrate that the 

[2002] Board decision contains obvious error of fact or 

law.” Resp’t’s App. 66. On November 21, 2013, Mr. Helm 

filed a Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) with the Veterans Court. 

The Secretary subsequently moved to dismiss the case 

and Mr. Helm filed a response, contending his NOA was 

filed within 120 days after the date on which notice of the 

denial for reconsideration was mailed. See 38 U.S.C. § 

1 The date of the mailing is the date that appears 

on the face of the enclosed [Board] decision.” Resp’t’s App. 

31

 

Case: 15-7064 Document: 19-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/13/2015
HELM v. MCDONALD 3

7266(a). On February 12, 2014, the Veterans Court 

ordered Mr. Helm to file additional documentation in 

support of a request to equitably toll the 120-day period in 

which to file a NOA. In his response, Mr. Helm claims 

that “he was unaware that in order to preserve his right 

to appeal to [the Veterans Court], he was required to file 

his motion for reconsideration within 120 days of the 

[2002] Board decision.” Helm I at 1. 

In an order dated June 11, 2014, the Veterans Court 

granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss the appeal, 

holding that “Mr. Helm’s confusion as to the time for 

filing either a direct appeal or for filing a motion for 

reconsideration that would serve to preserve his right to 

appeal . . . does not warrant equitable tolling of the filing 

period.” Id. Accordingly, the Veterans Court dismissed 

Mr. Helm’s appeal. On June 19, 2014, Mr. Helm filed a 

motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for a 

panel decision. On September 16, 2014, the Veterans 

Court granted the motion for a panel decision, but denied 

the motion for reconsideration and ordered the singlejudge order remain the decision of the court. Shortly 

thereafter, on September 22, 2014, Mr. Helm filed a 

motion for leave to include supporting documentation 

with his motion for reconsideration. On October 6, 2014, 

Mr. Helm filed a motion for panel reconsideration or, in 

the alternative, motion for full court review. However, on 

December 2, 2014, the Veterans Court denied Mr. Helm’s 

motion for leave to include supporting documentation and 

for reconsideration. On February 27, 2015, the Veterans 

Court denied Mr. Helm’s motion for a decision by the full 

court and entered judgment. 

Mr. Helm filed an NOA with this court on March 9, 

2015, and an amended NOA on March 13, 2015. 

Case: 15-7064 Document: 19-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/13/2015
4 HELM v. MCDONALD

II. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review 

This court has jurisdiction to review the Veterans 

Court’s decision pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Under that 

statute, this court may review “the decision with respect 

to the validity of a decision of the [Veterans Court] on a 

rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any 

interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a 

factual matter).” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). This court has 

“exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge 

to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation . . . , and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a 

decision.” Id. § 7292(c). Excluding a constitutional issue, 

this court lacks the jurisdiction to “review (A) a challenge 

to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or 

regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. 

§ 7292(d)(2). 

In reviewing a Veterans Court decision, this court 

must “decide all relevant questions of law, including 

interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions,” and 

must “set aside any regulation or any interpretation 

thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter)” relied upon by the Veterans Court that this court 

finds “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to 

constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in 

excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, 

or in violation of a statutory right; or (D) without observance of procedure required by law.” Id. § 7292(d)(1). 

We review questions of statutory and regulatory interpretation de novo. See Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 

112, 115 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7292; Hodge 

v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). 

Case: 15-7064 Document: 19-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/13/2015
HELM v. MCDONALD 5

B. There Was No Legal Error in the Veterans Court’s 

Equitable Tolling Analysis

On appeal, Mr. Helm argues the doctrine of “equitable 

tolling is authorized in the [Veterans Court’s] [decision] 

based on [his] reliance on the incorrect statement(s) of 

[the] Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) official(s).” 

Appellant’s Br. 4. Conceding that his motion for reconsideration was mailed almost eleven years after notice of the 

Board’s decision was sent, Mr. Helm asserts the Board 

“failed to provide proper and/or adequate notice to 

[him] . . . regarding their responsibility to comply with 38 

U.S.C. [§] 5104(a),[2] by including, with the [Veterans 

Affairs 2002] denial letter . . . , an obsolete/noncurrent/not up-to-date VA Form 4597.” Id. (capitalization 

modified). Specifically, Mr. Helm contends the 2002 

Board decision “directed [him] to alter” VA Form 4597, 

“thereby omitting/deleting information that misled [him] 

into missing the filing deadline for a timely Notice of 

Appeal to the [Veterans Court].” Id. at 7. 

Mr. Helm also argues his 2013 NOA was timely because, as instructed in VA Form 220 following his 2013 

motion for reconsideration, he filed his NOA within the 

120-day window specified in that form. Finally, Mr. Helm 

“request[s] th[is] [c]ourt to allow [his] case to proceed 

based on the application of the doctrine of equitable 

[t]olling,” as his case satisfies other precedential cases in 

2 38 U.S.C. § 5104(a) states: 

In the case of a decision by the Secretary under 

section 511 of this title affecting the provision of

benefits to a claimant, the Secretary shall, on a 

timely basis, provide to the claimant (and to the 

claimant’s representative) notice of such decision. 

The notice shall include an explanation of the procedure for obtaining review of the decision. 

 

Case: 15-7064 Document: 19-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/13/2015
6 HELM v. MCDONALD

which this court has applied the doctrine. Appellant’s Br. 

10. 

In response, the Secretary argues its 2002 “decision

[included an attachment] . . . advis[ing] [Mr. Helm] of 

changes to the notice resulting from the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-

103, 115 Stat. 976 [(2001)], and in fact, none of the 

amendments made by the 2001 Act are relevant to Mr. 

Helm’s appeal.” Appellee’s Br. 8–9. The Secretary also 

argues “[t]he [Notice of Disagreement] in Mr. Helm’s case 

was filed after the August 1996 [Regional] Office decision 

and a later rating decision, . . . so the 2001 amendments 

did not affect Mr. Helm’s case.” Id. With respect to VA 

Form 4597, the Secretary contends: 

[T]he portion of Form 4597 to which Mr. Helm is 

referring––the first bullet of the [B]oard guidance––pertained only to the first sentence of the 

paragraph titled “Appeal to the United States 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims” of Form 

4597 (1999), which had limited appeals to those 

cases in which a[] [Notice of Disagreement] was 

filed on or after November 18, 1988, and to the 

sentence directing the claimant to mail a copy of 

the N[otice] [of] [D]isagreement to the VA General 

Counsel. 

Appellee’s Br. 11. 

As to Mr. Helm’s second argument, the Secretary responds that “an NOA may be filed within 120 days of a 

[B]oard denial of a motion for reconsideration only if the 

motion was filed within 120 days of the [B]oard decision 

that the claimant requested to be reconsidered.” Appellee’s Br. 12. According to the Secretary, “[t]he sentence to 

which Mr. Helm refers, advising a claimant to file an 

NOA within 120 days of the date of mailing of the enclosed letter, refers to an ‘appeal of the Board’s denial of 

[a] motion for reconsideration,’ not to an appeal of the 

Case: 15-7064 Document: 19-2 Page: 6 Filed: 08/13/2015
HELM v. MCDONALD 7

original [B]oard decision.” Id. (brackets omitted) (citing 

Resp’t’s App. 67). 

In Henderson v. Shinseki, the Supreme Court reversed this court, concluding the 120-day period to file a 

NOA to the Veterans Court is not jurisdictional. 131 S. 

Ct. 1197, 1204 (2011) (holding that because the deadline 

for filing an NOA with the Veterans Court does not have 

jurisdictional consequences, it is therefore subject to 

equitable tolling). As a result, this court and the Veterans Court have treated the filing period as subject to 

equitable tolling. See, e.g., Sneed v. Shinseki, 737 F.3d 

719, 726 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Bove v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 

136, 139 (2011).

It is undisputed that the Board on July 24, 2002, 

mailed notice of its decision to Mr. Helm denying his 

claims for disability compensation for hypercholesterolemia and that it was not until almost eleven years later, on 

May 6, 2013, that Mr. Helm filed his motion for reconsideration of the decision. In order for equitable tolling to 

occur, the petitioner must show: ‘“(1) that he has been 

pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way’ and prevented 

timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 

(2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 

(2005)); see also Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 134 S. Ct. 

1224, 1231–32 (2014) (“As a general matter, equitable 

tolling pauses the running of, or ‘tolls,’ a statute of limitations when a litigant has pursued his rights diligently but 

some extraordinary circumstance prevents him from 

bringing a timely action.” (emphasis added)). 

Mr. Helm does not point to any extraordinary circumstance that caused his untimely filing; rather, his primary 

contention is that VA Form 4597, which was provided to 

him along with the Board’s 2002 decision, and which 

provides guidance to a losing party about how to appeal a 

Board decision, was inadequate because it was “obsoCase: 15-7064 Document: 19-2 Page: 7 Filed: 08/13/2015
8 HELM v. MCDONALD

lete/non-current/not up-to-date.” Appellant’s Br. 4 (capitalization modified). 

The point of contention stems from an attachment to 

VA Form 4597 concerning the Veterans Education and 

Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-103, 115 

Stat. 976 (2001) (the “Amendment”). See Appellant’s Br. 

21. Section 603(a) of the Amendment repealed section 

402 of the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100–

687, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 (1988), thus eliminating the 

need for a party to file a Notice of Disagreement to preserve the Veterans Court’s jurisdiction.3 Pub. L. No. 107–

3 The notice in the attachment to VA Form 4597

reads: 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: We have attached a VA Form 

4597 that tells you what steps you can take if you 

disagree with our decision. We are in the process 

of updating the form to reflect changes in the law 

effective on December 27, 2001. See the Veterans 

Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, 

Pub. L. No. 107-103, 115 Stat. 976 (2001). In the 

meanwhile, please note these important corrections 

to the advice in the form: 

• These changes apply to the section entitled “Appeal to the United States 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.” 

(1) A “Notice of Disagreement filed on 

or after November 18, 1988” is no longer required to appeal to the Court. (2) 

You are no longer required to file a 

copy of your [NOA] with VA’s General 

Counsel. 

• In the section entitled “Representation 

before VA,” filing a “Notice of Disagreement with respect to the claim on 

 

Case: 15-7064 Document: 19-2 Page: 8 Filed: 08/13/2015
HELM v. MCDONALD 9

103, § 603(a), 115 Stat. 976. Mr. Helm does not show how 

the inclusion of a notice about the Amendment in VA 

Form 4597 constituted an “extraordinary circumstance” 

so as to impact his ability to comprehend the form’s 

express statement that “[an] [NOA] must be filed with the 

[Veterans Court] within 120 days from the date of mailing 

of the notice of the [Board’s] decision.” Resp’t’s App. 31. 

In fact, he concedes the Amendment was academic to his 

ability to understand the instructions provided in the 

form. See Appellant’s Reply Br. 11 (“I never indicated, at 

any time or in any manner, that [the Amendment] . . . 

[was] relevant to my appeal. Whether or not the filing a 

Notice of Disagreement (NOD) on or after November 18, 

1988, was a prerequisite to the Veterans Court is a moot 

point and another distraction the Secretary’s counsel is 

using to skirt the main focus of my argument; that because the VA directed me, in writing, to ‘note these important corrections to the advice in the form’, the form was 

‘obsolete/noncurrent/not up-to-date’, thereby, inaccurate.”) 

(emphases added). 

Mr. Helm’s argument is tautological. Although he 

agrees the Amendment did not constitute the basis of his 

misunderstanding of the instructions of the form, he 

nonetheless cites to the notice about the Amendment to 

argue that VA Form 4597 is “obsolete/noncurrent/not upto-date.” It is unreasonable for Mr. Helm, in one instance 

to concede the Amendment is academic and then, in 

another, to argue the Secretary’s statements in the notice 

about the Amendment accompanying VA Form 4597

constitutes the basis for his claim. The mere inclusion of 

or after November 18, 1988” is no longer a condition for an attorney-at-law or 

a VA accredited agent to charge you a 

fee for representing you. 

Appellant’s Br. 21 (emphasis added). 

 

Case: 15-7064 Document: 19-2 Page: 9 Filed: 08/13/2015
10 HELM v. MCDONALD

a notice apprising Mr. Helm of an Amendment which had 

no bearing on the requirement that he file his motion for 

reconsideration within the 120-day window cannot, without more, constitute the basis of his equitable tolling 

claim. If the Amendment is irrelevant, we fail to see how 

the specific language directing Mr. Helm’s attention to the 

Amendment bears any significance. 

Furthermore, to the extent Mr. Helm argues the inclusion of the notice rendered VA Form 4597 obsolete, he 

fails to sufficiently argue how a form apprising him of an 

Amendment which had no bearing on his dilatory conduct 

rendered the form “not up-to-date” or inaccurate. This 

court has “made clear that ‘to benefit from equitable 

tolling, . . . a claimant [must] demonstrate three elements: 

(1) extraordinary circumstance; (2) due diligence; and (3) 

causation.’” Toomer v. McDonald, 783 F.3d 1229, 1238 

(Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Checo v. Shinseki, 748 F.3d 

1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Here, Mr. Helm not only 

fails to show any extraordinary circumstance for the delay 

in filing his motion for reconsideration, he has shown no 

reasonable causation between the notice attachment

apprising him of the Amendment and his untimely filing. 

Along with the Board’s July 2002 decision, and the

notice attachment, Mr. Helm received VA Form 4597 

stating that a direct appeal to the court must be filed 

within 120 days after notice of the Board’s decision was 

mailed to him. Additionally, VA Form 4597 expressly 

states that if the Board receives a motion for reconsideration within 120 days from the date of mailing of the Board 

decision, and that motion is denied, the claimant is permitted to file an NOA within 120 days from the mailing 

date of the Board’s denial. If the motion for reconsideration is granted, Form 4597 indicates an NOA may be filed 

within 120 days from the mailing date of the reconsideration decision. Resp’t’s App. 31 (“The [Veterans Court] has 

held that, if we receive your motion for reconsideration 

within 120 days from the date we mailed you the [Board’s] 

Case: 15-7064 Document: 19-2 Page: 10 Filed: 08/13/2015
HELM v. MCDONALD 11

decision, you will still be able to file an [NOA] with the 

[Veterans Court] within a period of 120 days from the date 

that the Board mails you either notice that it has denied 

your motion or notice of its decision on reconsideration.”) 

(emphasis added)). 

Mr. Helm’s second argument that his 2013 NOA was 

timely filed stands rejected. An NOA may be filed within 

120 days of the date the Board mails notice of its denial of 

a motion for reconsideration only if the motion was filed 

within the 120-day notice window of the Board decision 

the petitioner requested to be reconsidered. Here, the 

Board issued its decision on July 24, 2002. However, it 

did not receive Mr. Helm’s motion for reconsideration 

until May 14, 2013, almost eleven years after the Board’s 

decision. 

Because Mr. Helm received proper notice of the time 

for filing both an NOA and a motion for reconsideration, 

and because he has failed to show how his misunderstanding of such notice constitutes extraordinary circumstance or how the inclusion of a statement informing him 

of the Amendment caused the untimely filing of his motion for reconsideration, the doctrine of equitable tolling 

does not apply. Therefore, because Mr. Helm failed to 

timely appeal the Board’s 2002 decision, we affirm the 

Veterans Court’s decision to dismiss his appeal. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Veterans Court’s decision dismissing Mr. Helm’s appeal for want of jurisdiction 

is 

AFFIRMED

No costs. 

Case: 15-7064 Document: 19-2 Page: 11 Filed: 08/13/2015