Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07073/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07073-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Curtis E. Walden
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CURTIS E. WALDEN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7073

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-1480, Judge William Greenberg.

______________________ 

Decided: February 10, 2016

______________________ 

CURTIS E. WALDEN, Highland Home, AL, pro se.

JOSHUA A. MANDLEBAUM, 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., ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD; Y. KEN LEE,

Case: 15-7073 Document: 23-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/10/2016
2 WALDEN v. MCDONALD

CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, 

DC.

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Curtis E. Walden appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans’ Court”) dismissing his appeal as untimely. We 

affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Walden injured the second toe of his left foot 

while he was on active duty service with the Navy from 

1955 to 1957. He initially claimed compensation for a 

service disability related to that injury, which was denied

in 1963. 

In 1998, Mr. Walden requested that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) reopen his claim for disability compensation, alleging service-connected Freidberg’s 

disease in the second toe of his left foot. After a series of 

decisions, appeals, and remands, the Board finally determined that Mr. Walden was entitled to a 20% disability

rating between April 23, 1999, and April 23, 2003, and a 

30% rating thereafter.1 The Board’s final decision was 

mailed to Mr. Walden on September 12, 2011. 

On February 24, 2014, far more than 120 days after 

the Board’s decision and after the running of the time for 

 

1 The Board also determined that Mr. Walden was 

entitled to 100% disability for two periods of time when he 

was recovering from surgery. 

Case: 15-7073 Document: 23-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/10/2016
WALDEN v. MCDONALD 3

appeal, Mr. Walden requested reconsideration of the 2011 

Board decision, seeking a higher disability rating. This

was denied on April 24, 2014. On May 15, 2014, twentyone days after the denial of reconsideration, Mr. Walden 

then appealed the denial to the Veterans’ Court. He 

argued that his appeal was timely because he filed his 

appeal within 120 days of the denial of the petition for 

reconsideration. 

The Veterans’ Court dismissed Mr. Walden’s appeal 

as untimely, explaining that “[a]lthough [Mr. Walden] is 

correct that he filed his appeal to the Court within 120

days of the Board[’s] denial of his motion for reconsideration, [Mr. Walden’s] failure to file his motion for reconsideration within 120 days of [the date the original decision 

was mailed] results in an untimely filing of his appeal to 

the Court.” App. 6.2 As the Veterans’ Court explained, 

“[i]f an appellant chooses to file a motion for reconsideration, he may still appeal to the Court, but only if he files 

his motion for reconsideration with the Board within 120 

days of the date on which the Board decision was mailed, 

and then submits his appeal to the Court within 120 days 

from when the Board mails the notice of the denial of 

reconsideration to the appellant.” Id. at 7. Because Mr. 

Walden had not provided an excuse for missing the 120-

day window for filing the petition for reconsideration, see 

Brandenburg v. Principi, 371 F.3d 1362, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 

2004), the Veterans’ Court dismissed the appeal. 

Mr. Walden now appeals to our court. We have limited jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans’ 

Court. Absent a constitutional issue, we may not review a 

challenge to a factual determination or a challenge to a 

law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular 

 

2 All notations to the appendix refer to the appendix 

attached to the government’s informal brief.

Case: 15-7073 Document: 23-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/10/2016
4 WALDEN v. MCDONALD

case. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 

F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

DISCUSSION

Mr. Walden challenges the Veterans’ Court’s dismissal of his appeal as untimely. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7266(a), “[i]n order to obtain review by the Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims of a final decision of the 

Board of Veterans' Appeals, a person adversely affected 

by such decision shall file a notice of appeal with the 

Court within 120 days after the date on which notice of 

the decision is mailed.” A decision on a motion for reconsideration is not a “final decision” under the statute; thus 

normally an appeal must be filed within 120 days of the 

final decision of the Board. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1001

(decision rejecting motion for reconsideration is a “final 

disposition of the motion” not a final decision of the 

Board); Mayer v. Brown, 37 F.3d 618, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

(overruled in part on other grounds). However, if a veteran seeks reconsideration of a Board decision within that 

120-day window, the veteran may appeal within 120 days 

of the decision on the motion for reconsideration. See, 

e.g., Rosler v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 241, 245 (1991). The 

120-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal is not jurisdictional, and the period may be equitably tolled. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 441–42 (2011). Thus, a 

veteran may still appeal to the Veterans’ Court provided 

he gives an acceptable reason for missing the deadline. 

Mr. Walden has not given any reason as to why the 

deadline should be equitably tolled here.

Mr. Walden’s brief primarily addresses the merits of 

the underlying claim and does not address the timeliness 

issue. Mr. Walden’s only argument regarding timeliness 

seems to be that he filed his notice of appeal within 120 

days of the denial of his motion for reconsideration. This 

does not mean that the appeal was timely filed. Mayer, 

Case: 15-7073 Document: 23-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/10/2016
WALDEN v. MCDONALD 5

37 F.3d at 620. Mr. Walden missed the deadline for 

seeking reconsideration by more than two years. His 

appeal to the Veterans’ Court is therefore time-barred. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-7073 Document: 23-2 Page: 5 Filed: 02/10/2016