UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O . 99-988
W I L L I AM D. S MI TH , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. T OGO D. W EST , J R ., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided June 14, 2000 )

Carol Ponton , o f H oll y

Hi ll, F lor ida , w a s o n th e ple a din g s f or the a pp e lla nt. Leigh A. Bradley , G e ne ra l Co un se l; Ro n Garv in , A ssi sta nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Thomas A. Mc Lau gh lin ; and Crist ine D. S en s eman , all of Washington, D.C., we re on the pleading s for the appellee

. Be fore I VERS, STEI

NB ERG, and GREENE, J ud ge s. STEI NB ERG, Judge : B e fo re the Court in t his a pp e a l is a jur isd ic tio na l is su e of

the tim e lin e ss of the appellant' s Notice of Appea l (NOA) . The Court' s determination of this issue turns on whethe r the circ umstances of

this case sup p ort the application of equitable tolling, w ithin the meaning of Ba ile yv . W est , 160 F.3d 1360 ( Fe d. Cir. 199 8 ) (e n b an c) , to the 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) 120-da y deadli n e
. B e c a

u s e th e Co u rt w il l h o ld th a t th e s it u a ti o n h e r e d o e s n o t s u

p p o rt th e a

p p li c a tion of equitable tolling, w e will g rant the Sec reta ry ' s motion for dismis sal and dismiss thi s appea l for lac k of jurisdiction.

I. Re le va nt Bac kgr ound On March 18, 1998, the B oard of Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa

rd or B VA) issued a

decision denyin g th e a

p p e ll an t' s c la im f

o r D e p artm e n t o f V e te r an s A f f a ir s ( V A ) s e r

v ic e c o n n e c ti on for cirrhosis of t h e l i v er
. On J uly 10, 1998, the B oard r ece ived from the a ppellant a motion for2

rec onsideration, which w as denie d by the Acting BV A Chairman on October 7, 1998. That denia l provided: Your motion for re consideration, which has been car efully revie wed in lig ht of the B oard' s decision in y our appeal, does not demonstrate that the BVA dec ision contains obvious e rror
. The BV A decision at issue c ontains findings of fac t that have a plausible b as i s i n the re cord; wa s consistent with the available evidenc e and applicable s t at u t o ry

an d re gu l at o ry

p ro v i s i o n s ; an d

co n t ai n s cl ea rl y

s t ated r easons a

nd bases f or the de cision. For the se re asons, I must den y y o ur motion for rec onsideration.
Public L aw No. 105-111, which was enac ted on November 21, 1997, cr eate s a ne w se c tio n 711 1 in title 38 , Uni te d Stat e s Code , g ivi ngthe B oa rd the a uth or ity to revise pr ior BV A decisions on the g rounds of clea r and unmistakable err or (CUE)

.

. . . T he re fo re , th e B oa

rd is c on str uin g y our m oti on

fo r re c on sid e ratio n on th e ba sis of obvious err or as a reque st f or revision of a pr ior BV A dec ision on the gr ounds of CUE.
The B oard is eng ag ed in promulg ating regulations nece ssary to car ry out the pr ov isi on s of Pub

. L

. No

. 10 5- 11 1 and ha s de c ide d to de fe r de te rm inatio ns on all re qu e sts fo r r e vis ion

of pr io r BVA d e c isi on

on the g ro un ds of

CU E unti l th e se regulations have be en finalized. When f inal regulations become e ffe ctive, the B oard will beg i n t o adjudicate these re quests. At that time, the Boa rd will review

y our reque st for re vision of a prior B VA dec ision on the gr ounds of CUE.
I n the meantime, a

ny addi t i o n al evidenc e that y ou may obtain may

be su bmi tte d to the St. Pe te rs burg re g ion a l of fi c e in s up po rt

of a ne w o r r e op e ne d c la im. Secre tary ' s Transmittal of B VA De cision (Tra nsmitt al), Attac hment (Attch.) 1, at 1-3. On J une 10, 1999, the a

ppellant filed throu g h counsel a n NOA f rom the Mar ch 18, 1998, BV A dec ision. On Aug ust 11, 1999, the S ecr etar y moved t o dismiss the appeal, asser ting that the ap p el l an th adfi l edan u n t i m el y NO A. On S ep t em b e r 2 , 1 9 9 9 , t h e C o u rt gra n t edt h e S ec re t ary 's

un op po se d mo tio n. On

tha t sa me date , th e a

pp e lla nt f ile d a mot ion fo r a n e xtens io n of ti me to

re sp on d to t he Sec re tary ' s mo tio n, and la te r f ile d o ut- of

-t ime a mot ion tha t he be pe rm itt e d to

re sp on d to the Se c re tary ' s mo tio n to dis mis s a nd a mot ion to r e ins ta te the c a se and

to f ile a re sp on se out-of-time. On September 22, 1999, the Clerk of the Court revoke d the September 2, 1999, order and re instated the appe al and or dere d the appe llant to file a response not later than 20 day s after the date of the or de r. On

Oc tob e r 1 2, 19 99 , th e a

pp e lla nt f ile d a re sp on se to the Se c re tary ' s mo tio n to dismiss . On Fe bruar

y 28, 2000, the Secr etar

y filed a r esponse. On Marc h 8, 2000, the appe llant3

filed a motion for le ave to f ile a re ply to the S ecr etar

y ' s response to the C ourt' s September 22, 1999, order . The Court g rante d that motion and the appellant filed the reply on April 27, 2000. The

a pp e lla nt a lso fi le d a

mot ion fo r a n e xten sio n o f t ime , w hic h the Court g ra nte d, to fi le an a ff

ida vit , and the a ppellant on May

17, 2000, filed an a ffidavit.

II. Ana lys is The ultimate burde n of establishing j u ri s d iction rests with the appe llant. Se e Mc Nut t

v . G .M .A .C. , 2 98 U. S. 1 78 , 1 89 (1 93 6) ; Bethea v . Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 252, 255 ( 1992). Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a), in order for a claimant to obt ain re view of a BV A dec ision by

this Court, t hat de c isi on mus t be fi na l and the pe rs on a dv e rs e ly a ff e c te d b y tha t de c isi on g e ne ra lly mus t f ile a tim e ly NO A wi t h t h e Court. See B ailey , 1 6 0 F

. 3 d a t1 3 6 3

. T o h a v e b e e nt i m e l y f i l e d u n d e r 3 8 U .S. C. § 7266(a) and Rule 4 of this Court's Rules of P rac tice and Procedure , an NOA g ener ally must have b e e nr e c e i v e d

( o r , i nc e rt a i nc i r c u m s t an c e s , b e d e e m e d s o r e c e i v e d ) b y t h e C o u rtw i t h i n1 2 0 d a ys afte r not ice of the underly ing final BV A decision was mailed. See Cin tro n v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 251, 254 (1999); Le on ar

d v . W est , 1 2 V e t.A

pp . 5 54 , 5 55 (1 99 9) (p e r c ur iam or de r) ; se e als o 38 U. S.C. § 7266(a) (3)( B)

. Bu t se e Ev an s ( Bi lly ) v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 396, 399 (1999) ( citing c ases r eg arding equitable tolling of

NOA- filing pe riod under c erta in circumstanc es). Howeve r, under Rosler v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 24 1 , 2 4 9 (1991), a motion for

re c on sid e ratio n f

ile d w iththe B oa

rd wi thi n th e 12 0- da

y jud ic ia l- a

pp e a l pe ri od

wi ll " tol l th e tim e li mi t f or f il in g a[n NOA ] to th e C ou rt ." L i n v i l l e v . W e st , 165 F.3d 1382, 1386 ( Fe d. Cir. 1999) (expressly

adopting Rosler , su

pra ). As thi s Court held in Rosler , "if

. . . the claimant . . . - - bef ore filing a n NOA with this Court -- files a motion for reconsider ation with the B VA duringthe 120-da y judicial appea l period, the fina lity of the initial BVAdecision is abate d b y t hat motion for

re c on sid e ratio n .
. . [an d a ] ne w 120 -d ay pe ri od be g ins to r

un on the date on

wh ic h th e B VAma ils to the claimant notice of

its denial of the motion to reconsider ". Rosler , su pra . Thus, t h er e is an exception in those cases in whic h the appe llant has (1) f iled a motion for B VA re co n s ideration within 120 day s after

the mailing date of notice of the unde rlying f i nal B VA dec ision and als o (2) fi l ed an NO A within 120 day s after the B VA Chairman ha s mailed notice of a denial of the

rec onsideration motion. See R osler , su pra ; se e als o Li nv ill e , 165 F.3d at 1385-86.4

I n the instant case , the appe llant's N OA, which " was prope rly ad d ressed to the Court and mailed" , was de emed to have been r ece ived on J une 10, 1999, "the date of the United States Postal Se rv ic e po stm ark sta

mpe d on the c ov e r in wh ic h the no tic e [wa s] po ste d" . 3 8 U.S. C. § 7266(a) (3)( B)

. Thus, that J une 10, 1999, NOA wa s filed more tha n 120 day s after

the ActingBV A Chairman' s letter denying rec onsideration was mailed on October 7, 1998, and the a ppellant has not met the sec ond of the two 120-da y judicial -a p p ea l p er i ods that obtains where a motion for B VA

rec onsideration has be en filed within 120 day s afte r t he maili ng of notice of the B VA dec ision. The question befor e this panel, ther efor e, is whethe r the c ircumst a n c e s h e r e r e g ardingthe appe llant's June 19 9 9 N O A tr ig g e r

th e a p p li c a ti o no f

e qu it a b le to ll in g to th e 1 2 0

- d ay s e c ti o n7 2 6 6 ju d ic ia l- appea l period. I n Bailey , the U.S. Court of Appea ls for t he Feder al Circuit (F eder al Circuit) cha rac terized Ir win v . D e p't o f V e te ra ns Af fai rs , 498 U.S. 89, 95-96 (1990), as having held that "e quitable tolling is available in suits betwee n private litigants

. . . ' wher e the c omplainant has bee n induced or tricked by hi s adver sary 's mi sco nduct in to all owi ng th e fi li ng dead li ne t o p ass .'" Bailey , 160 F.3d at 1364 (q u o t i n g Ir

win , su pra ). The Fe dera l Circuit specific ally held in Baileythat equitable tolling in the pater nalistic vetera

ns' benef its contex t does not require mis conduct (s u ch as t ricke ry ); howeve r, Bailey d o e s r e qu i r e t h e a

p p e l l an tt o h a v e b e e n" m i s l e d b y the c ond uc t of his a dv e rsa ry

into allowing th e fi li ng dead li ne t o p ass ." Bailey , 160 F.3d at 1365 (emphasis adde d). Th e a pp e lla nt ar g ue s tha t the c ir c ums tanc e s of his c a se wa rr ant t he a pp lic a tio n o f e qu ita

ble tol lin g be c a

us e he c on sis te ntl y

so ug ht h e lp f

ro m and re lie d u po n St a te of

F lor ida Vo lus ia County veter ans ser

vice of fice rs (VSOs) in Da

y to n a Be ac h , Florida , in pursuing the claim in question. Specifica lly , the appe llant alleg es that upon re ceivingthe Octobe r 7, 1998, denia l of his motion for B VAre c on sid e ratio n, he " imm e diate ly me t w itha

[VSO ] fo r Vo lus ia County " and sh ow e d th a t V SO the Octobe r 7, 1998, B VA denia l letter, and tha t that VSO "stated that, appa rently , someone ha d alre ady appea led my

case [; ] . . . t hen dire cted [him] to sit back and wa it, and see w hat happe ns beca use the c ase was s till in appea l status befor e the BV A[; and]

. . . told [hi m] that [he] could not do any thing until [he had] heard fr om the BV A." Appellant' s Response (Resp.), A ffidavit at 1. He also alleg es that he r ece ived an Apr il 19, 1999, letter from the B oard; that he then met with another Volusia County

employ ee, w ho direc ted him to consult an attorney ; and that he contac ted an attorney5

and ther eaf

ter filed a n NOA with this Court. Ib id . The a ppellant' s argument, in essence , is that the Vo lus ia County VSO , o n w ho se a dv ic e he re lie d, mis le d h im i nto a llo wi ngthe fi lin g de a dli ne to p a ss and that the NO A f

i l i n g p eriod should be subjec t to equitable tolling bec ause of such misleading advice . Resp. at 4. Although in Baileythere was no que stion but t hat the re prese ntativ e o n wh o m the veter an h adre l i edwa s a V A em p l o y ee , t h e Fed er al C i rc u i t t h er e di d s p ec i fi ca l l y co n cl u d e "t h at a v et er an 's ind uc e me nt by

an a dv e rsa ry 's conduct is a kin to g rounds sufficie nt to toll a limit ations period in a pri vat e su it ." Bailey , 160 F.3d at 1365. I n this c ase, the appe llant's r epre sentative be fore the B oard was not a V A employ ee but a Volusia County , Florida , employ ee. Re sp. at 4. Nor doe s the appe llant contend that that Volusia County VSO was an ag ent of VA. The Volusia County VSO, on whom the veter an re lied to his detriment, was not an " adver sary " in the pr ocee dings be fore this Court, and the Ir win holding that excusable neg lect does not suppor t e quitable tolling is applicable to this case. See I rwi n , su pra ; Le on ar

d , 1 2 V e t.A

pp . at 55 5; id . at 55 7 ( Ste inb e rg , J., c on c ur ri ng ); s e e a l

so Cintron , su

pra . The a ppellant co n ce d es that in October 1998 he re ceive d a copy of the Ac ting B VA Chairman ' s O c to b e r 7 , 1 9 9 8 , d e n ia l o f h is mo ti o n f o r B V A r e c o n s id e r a ti o n
. T h e Se c r e ta ry has provided e vidence , in the form of a BV A Noti ce of Appellate Rights FollowingDenial of Motion fo r Re c on sid e ratio n (N oti c e ) date d Oc tob e r 7, 19 98 , th a t a c c omp anie d th a t de nia l, t hat V A p ro pe rl y and promptly advised the veter an of his a ppellate rig hts, a s require d by 38 U.S.C. § 5104(a) (whe n VA make s a dec ision as t o a claim for benefits, t he S ecr etar y "sha ll, on a timely

basis, provide the claimant

. . . notice of such decision

. . . [t hat] shall include an explanation of the pr o ce d u re for obtaining r eview of

the dec isi o n ") ; t he appe llant has not ref uted that evidenc e. See Thompson ( Cha rle s) v . B ro wn , 8 Ve t

. Ap p
. 169, 177 (1995) ( holding that 38 U.S.C. § 5104(a) require s that Boa rd mail copy

of notice of

appellate rig hts along with BVAdecision). The Court thus holds t hat the appellant was advised of hi s appellate rig hts in accor dance with section 5104(a)

. See Cumm ings

v . W est , 136 F.3d 1 4 6 8 , 1 4 7 4 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that BV A Notice w as suffic ient under 38 U.S.C. § 5104(a) and that VA was not r equire d to provide deta iled descr iptions or information), cert. de nied , 118 S. Ct. 2373 (1998), overruled in part on other grounds , Bailey , 160 F.3d at 1368;6

s e e a l s o P o g u e v
. W

est , 1 3 Ve t

. Ap p. 368, 375 (2000); Cha sta in v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 296, 300 (2000). Th e a

pp e lla nt argue s, ho we ve r, that he did no t re c e ive a de qu a te no tic e of his a pp e a l r ig hts i nt h at t h e O ct o b er

7 , 1 9 9 8 , l et t er

fr o m t h e A ct i n g BV A C h ai rm an wa s co n fu s i n g an d m i s l ea d i n g. Resp. at 5. He c oncede s that that October 1 9 9 8 letter did, in fac t, state that his motion for BVA

rec onsideration had be en denie d, but he asser ts that the letter "immediate ly g oes on to addre ss" the pending CUE claim and that that lang uag e conf used both the vete ran a

nd his repre sentative, the Volus ia Co u n ty V SO , in to b e li e v in g th a t h is r e c o n s id e r a ti o nmo ti o nh a d n o t b e e nf

u ll y d e c ided. Resp. at. 5-8. The Court notes that the Acting BV A Chairman did state specific ally in his October 7, 1998, letter: " Imust deny

y our motion for rec onsideration." Secre tary ' s Transmittal, Attch. 1, at 2. The Court also notes that that denial was acc ompanied by the Notice that specified: " I f y ou filed y our motion for rec onsideration withi n 120 day s of t he date of mailing of the B oard' s decision, y ou now have a na d d it io n a l 1 2 0 d ay s f r o m t h e d a te o f

ma il in g o f

th e le tt e r

d e n y in g y o u r

mo ti o nf

or
reco ns id erat io n, whi ch acc om pan ies th is no ti ce." Id . at 3. B ased on t h o s e fa cts, the Court finds under Baileythat neither the letter nor the Notice, whe ther c onsidered se parately or in combination,

can r easona

bly be said to have induced the appellant or his repr esentative to miss the filing dea dline (althoug h it would have been pr efe rable for the A cting BV A Chairman' s letter to have made more clea r that the consideration of his motion as a CUE claim was in a ddition to i ts being considere d and reje cted by

the Bo ar d as a mot ion for B VA re consideration). See G ilbert v. Sec retary of HHS , 51 F.3d 2 5 4 , 257 (F ed. Cir. 1995) (holdingthat equitable- tolling doctrine cannot a pply wher e
a tto rn e y mis re a d s ta tut e ); Pogue , 13 Vet.A p p
. at 375-76 (holding that equitable tolling is not

a pp ro pr ia te wh e re the re wa s n oth ingmis le a din g or a mbi g uo us in B V A

N o t i c e " ' t h a t c o u l d r e a so na bly b e s ai d t o h av e i n d

u ce d t h e a p p el l an tt o m i s s t h e N OA fi l i n g d ea d l i n e'" ( qu o t i n g Cintron , 13 Vet.App. at 251, 257-59)). Ac c or din g ly , th e Court

ho lds that the c ir c ums tanc e s sur ro un din g the a

pp e lla nt' s fili ngof

his J une 10, 1999, NOAdo not trigg er the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling. Therefor e, the Court is w ith ou t juri sd ic tio n to re vie w this a pp e a l.

III. Conclusi on7

Upon consider ation of the for eg oing a naly sis and the s ubmissions of t he par ties, the Court g rants the Sec reta

ry ' s motion and dismi sses this appeal f or lac k of jurisdiction. APPEALDI SMI SSED.