Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07039/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07039-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Elijah Thomas
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ELIJAH THOMAS,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7039

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-1129, Judge William Greenberg.

______________________ 

Decided: June 9, 2015

______________________ 

ELIJAH THOMAS, Shreveport, LA, pro se. 

SOSUN BAE, 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., ALLISON 

KIDD-MILLER; Y. KEN LEE, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-7039 Document: 11-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2015
2 THOMAS v. MCDONALD

Before WALLACH, CLEVENGER, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

WALLACH, Circuit Judge. 

Elijah Thomas appeals the decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”) dismissing one of two appeals as untimely filed 

and not subject to equitable tolling. Elijah Thomas v. 

Robert A. McDonald, Sec’y of Vet. Affairs, No. 14-1129

(Vet. App. Oct. 31, 2014). For the reasons set forth below, 

we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Thomas served in the United States military on 

active duty from March 1971 to March 1973. In April 

1996, Mr. Thomas was denied service connection for 

various medical conditions. In April 2004, a separate 

decision granted service connection for posttraumatic 

stress disorder (“PTSD”) with a fifty percent disability 

rating, effective April 8, 1996, but denied service connection for vertigo, a gastrointestinal disability, upper respiratory infection, sinusitis, and allergic rhinitis. In 

January 2005, Mr. Thomas was denied entitlement for 

total disability based on individual unemployability 

(“TDIU”). Mr. Thomas appealed these decisions to the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). 

In a July 13, 2012, decision, the Board denied service 

connection for several of Mr. Thomas’ conditions and 

denied an effective date earlier than April 8, 1996, for his 

PTSD. The Board granted Mr. Thomas service connection 

for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and hypertension, and 

granted a May 16, 1997, effective date for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the upper and lower 

extremities. With respect to Mr. Thomas’s claims relating 

to a skin disability, vertigo, upper respiratory disability, 

gastrointestinal disability, entitlement to a disability 

Case: 15-7039 Document: 11-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2015
THOMAS v. MCDONALD 3

rating in excess of fifty percent for PTSD, and TDIU, the 

Board remanded the issues to the Regional Office (“RO”). 

In accordance with the Board decisions, the RO implemented the awards granted to Mr. Thomas. Mr. 

Thomas filed a notice of disagreement (“NOD”), contesting 

the rating decisions and effective dates of the service 

connection awards for hypertension and hearing loss, and 

with the initial rating for tinnitus. The RO increased the 

rating for PTSD with dysthymic disorder to 70 percent.

In a July 17, 2013, decision, the Board denied a higher rating decision for Mr. Thomas’s PTSD and denied 

service connection for an upper respiratory disability, skin 

disability, vertigo, and a gastrointestinal disability. The 

Board also remanded several issues, including: entitlement for a rating in excess of ten percent for tinnitus, 

compensable service connection for bilateral hearing loss 

and hypertension, and an effective date earlier than to 

April 16, 2001, for the award of service connection for 

hypertension, and earlier effective dates prior for bilateral 

hearing loss and TDIU. 

On March 31, 2014, Mr. Thomas submitted a notice of 

appeal to the Veterans Court of both the July 13, 2012, 

and July 17, 2013, Board decisions. Finding the 120-day 

period to appeal had passed, the Veterans Court ordered 

Mr. Thomas to explain why his appeal should not be 

found to be untimely. Mr. Thomas explained he had filed 

a NOD relating to the 2012 decision and provided the 

Veterans Court with a copy of it. Mr. Thomas did not 

explain why his appeal relating to the 2013 decision was 

late. 

On October 31, 2015, the Veterans Court found Mr. 

Thomas had mailed his NOD relating to the 2012 decision 

to the incorrect address within the 120-day deadline and 

therefore excused the lateness. With regard to the 2013 

decision, however, the Veterans Court found that Mr. 

Thomas presented no circumstances explaining why his 

Case: 15-7039 Document: 11-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2015
4 THOMAS v. MCDONALD

claim should be equitably tolled and therefore found 

tolling unwarranted. The appeal relating to the July 17, 

2013, Board decision was therefore dismissed as untimely. 

Mr. Thomas timely appeals and this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) (2012). 

DISCUSSION

This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the 

Veterans Court is limited by statute. Pursuant to 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(a), this court has jurisdiction to review “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) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in 

making the decision.” Except to the extent that a constitutional issue is presented, this court 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 

case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2)(A)–(B). The Veterans Court’s legal 

determinations are reviewed de novo. Cushman v. 

Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Though Mr. Thomas indicates in his petition that the 

Veterans Court decision did not “involve the validity or 

interpretation of a statute or regulation,” he provides 

factual reasons why the deadline to appeal the 2013 

decision should be equitably tolled. Pet’r’s Br. 1. In 

particular, Mr. Thomas contends the July 17, 2013, 

decision should be equitably tolled because he “went to 

the [VA] to file a notice of appeal, [and] they wouldn’t fill 

out the form [because the VA] claim[ed] it t[ook] a lot of 

[their] time, and a lot of paper work.” Id. at 2. Mr. 

Thomas also explains he was told by the VA that his 

rating decision was reduced from 100 percent to ninety

percent because he “ke[pt] appeal[ing] all of the [VA] 

decisions and that they had help[ed]” him. Id. at 3. Mr. 

Thomas further notes that he was told in February 2014 

Case: 15-7039 Document: 11-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2015
THOMAS v. MCDONALD 5

that the VA did not get his notice of appeal and that, a 

month later, he learned that two forms dated May 24, 

2012, and September 20, 2012, were missing and the VA 

“wouldn’t do an inquir[y in]to what happened to them.” 

Id. Lastly, he alleges that on August 20, 2014, he learned 

the “forms never reach[ed] [the New] Orleans[] [RO]” and 

“the counselor [] was upset that [he] continue[d] to call 

asking about these form[s] and want[ed] to know who [] 

[he] had been talking to,” and refused to filed a notice of 

appeal. Id. 

 Equitable tolling is not “limited to a small and closed 

set of factual patterns.” Mapu v. Nicholson, 397 F.3d 

1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). We have “rejected the approach of looking to whether a particular case falls within 

the facts specifically identified in . . . one of our prior 

cases.” Id. Instead, this court has “acknowledged ‘the 

need for flexibility’ and ‘for avoiding mechanical rules,’ 

and [has] proceeded on a ‘case-by-case basis.’” Toomer v. 

McDonald, No. 2014-7045, 2015 WL 1782338, at *9 (Fed. 

Cir. Apr. 21, 2015) (quoting Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 

631, 631 (2010)). 

However, we have consistently applied 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292 to strictly bar fact-based appeals from decisions of 

the Veterans Court. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Principi, 273 

F.3d 1072, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Because it is clear that 

the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims merely applied 

the statute to the facts, its decision falls outside our 

jurisdiction under the express terms of 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(d)(2).”). Specifically, this court has held that 

applying equitable tolling to the particular facts of a case 

does not create a basis for jurisdiction. Leonard v. Gober, 

223 F.3d 1374, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (finding lack of

jurisdiction “to consider [Petitioner’s] arguments regarding application of equitable tolling to the facts of her 

case”); Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 

2014) (“This court is precluded from reviewing factual 

Case: 15-7039 Document: 11-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/09/2015
6 THOMAS v. MCDONALD

determinations bearing on a veteran’s equitable tolling 

claim.”) (internal citation omitted)

Because Mr. Thomas does not argue the Veterans 

Court misapplied or misinterpreted a statute and provides only factual evidence for why he missed the deadline, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Mr. 

Thomas’s appeal.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, the decision of the Veterans 

Court is 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-7039 Document: 11-2 Page: 6 Filed: 06/09/2015