UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 08-0548
P ET ER L. K O U V A R IS , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. E RI C K. S H I N SEKI , 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 (Argued January

15, 2009 Dec ided Fe bruar y 25, 2009)

Landon E. Overby , of Washington, D.C., with whomRobert V. Chisholm, of Providence , Rhode I sland, and

Zac ha ry M. Sto lz , of Washington, D.C., we re on the pleading s, for the a pp e lla nt. Richard May erick, with whom John H. Thompson , A c tin g Ge ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Assistant Gener al Counsel, all of Washington D.C., we re on the pleading s, for the appellee

. Be fore KASOL D, L ANCE, and DA VI S, Judges

. KASOL D, Judge : Peter L . Kouvar is appea ls a J uly 17, 2007, decision o f t h e Bo ard of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls ( B oa

rd ) t hat de ni e d d i s a b i l i t y c o m p e n s a t i o n fo r r e sid ua ls o f a g a str e c tomy

be c a us e they wer e not servic e conne cted. For the reasons set forth below, this appea l will be dismi ssed for lack of jurisdiction.

I. F AC TS Mr. Kouvar is filed a Notice of Appe al (NOA) with t he Court on Fe bruar y 15, 2008, more than 120 d ay s afte r the date the B oard de cision was mailed to him. He a lso filed a VA F orm 21- 4138 (Statement in Support of Claim), with the Boa rd on October 12, 2007, well within the 120- day filing pe riod. That for

m has " Notice of

Disag ree ment" w ritten ac ross the top. I t also includes Mr. Ko uv ari s' s n a me , a dd

re ss, te le ph on e numb er, and De pa rtme nt o f V e te ra

ns Af fa ir s c la ims fi le2

number, a nd it state s that "[b]eing the above named Veter an I wish to f ile this noti ce of

disag ree ment with the Depa

rtment of Veter ans Affa irs Boa rd of Veter ans' Appea ls." F or re asons not known, the fo rm wa s fo rw ard e d by the B oa rd to t he Pr ov ide nc e , Rh od e I sla nd , r e g ion a l of

fi c e (R O) . T he RO then sent Mr. Kouva

ris a letter on November 14, 2007, that advised him that if he wa nted to appea l the B oard de cision he should send his appea l to the Court. Mr. Kouvaris then f iled the document wi th t he Court

.

II. AR G UM EN TS OF THE P AR TIES I n r e sp on se to a

n o rd e r t o s ho w c a

us e wh y his a pp e a l sh ou ld no t be dis mis se d, a s we ll a s in response to an orde r for

supplemental brief

ing, Mr

. Kouvar is a

rg ues that the VA For

m 21- 4138 that he filed w ith the Boa

rd constitutes an NO A. Assuming a rgue n d o t h at i t constitutes an NOA, Mr. Kouvar is recog nizes that it was not timely mailed to the Court. He a rg ues, howeve r, that it was timely rec eived by the Boa

rd, and that this rec iept should be consider ed a timely filing of an appe al to t he Court fo r o ur jur isd ic tio na l pu

rp os e s. I n th e alt e rn a tiv e , M r. Ko uv ari s argue s th a t th is document const i t utes a motion for re consideration by the B oard pur suant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1001 (2009). Mr. Kouvar is acknowle dg es that the re cent de cisions in Bo wle s v . R us se ll , 127 S. Ct . 2360, 2365 (2008) and Hende rson v. Peak e , 22 Ve t.A

pp . 21 7 (2 00 8) sta

nd fo r the pr op os iti on

that th e tim e to file an a

ppeal is jurisdictional an d m ay not be equitably tolled, but he distinguishes these c ases by noting that they did not involve a timely , albeit misfiled a ppeal, that he ar g ues is the ca se her e. Mr. Kouvar is further a

rg ues that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) permits the Court to trea t a misfiling with the Secre tary as a de emed f

iling at the Court. By way of analog y , he notes that certain misfilings in the wrongFe dera l court have been r ecog nized by judicial decision or r

ule as filed in the c orre ct cour t on the date of

the m i s fi l i n g i n t h e wrong c ourt. See F ED
. R. A PP
. P. 4 (d ) ( g ov e rn ingmis fi lin g s in U. S. Cir c uit Court s o f A

pp e a l) ; see also 28 U. S.C. § 1 63 1 ( in c a se s o f m isf ili ng , a uth or izin g a

pp e a ls to p ro c e e d a s if

the y " ha d b e e n f

ile d o r n oti c e d f

or the c ourt to whi ch it is tr ans fe rr e d o n th e date upon which it was a ctually filed in or noticed f

or the c ourt from whic h it is transfe rre d") . Mr. Kouvar is also notes that alth o u gh n o t expli citly authorized by

statute, the Supreme Court ha s
rec og nized the date a pr o se prisoner deposits a not i ce of appe al with a prison off icial for ma iling3

as the date it wa s filed with the court. See H ouston v. Lack , 487 U. S. 2 66 (1 98 8) ; but see Elsev ier v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t.A

pp . 1 50 (1 99 1) (r e

je c tin g the argume nt that a fi lin g a t th e RO or

B oa rd c ou ld be construc tively

filed with the Court). Th e Se c re tary

argue s th a t Hende rson , su pr a , controls this matter and that e quitable tolling is not permitted. He also notes that Mr. Ko u v ar i s did not chara cter ize his fili ng as a motion for
rec onsideration until doing so in his supplemental brief ing.

III . A NA LY SIS A. For m 21-4138 filed at the B oard is not an NO A. I t is we ll s e ttl e d th a t a doc ume nt fi le d w iththe Court wi ll b e lib e ra lly

c on str ue d to c on sti tut e an NOA"' as long as the intent to seek Court re view is clea r fr om the document as a

whole and the cir cum st ances of i ts fi li ng wi th th e C ou rt .'" Durr v. Nicholson , 400 F.3d 1375, 1381 ( Fe d. Cir. 2005) (q u o t i n g In Re R ules of Practice &Proc ., U. S. Ve t. Ap p. Mis c . No . 1 -0 2 ( Se pt. 17 , 2 00 2) ); Losh v. Br own , 6 Vet.App. 87, 90 (1993) ("Court has t raditionally adopted a liberal rule of construc tion as to wh a t c on sti tut e s a

va lid NO A" ); see also C

hadwick v. D erwinski , 1 Vet.App. 74 ( 1990) (holding that a VAF or m 21 -4 13 8 that me e ts the su bs tanti ve re qu ir e me nts of bo th se c tio n 72 66 (a ) and Rul e 3 of the Court' s Rules and reque sts review by the Court is an NOA)

. Thus, the fa ilure to expli citly ask for judicial revie w, or state t hat one is appea ling, does not
nece ssarily

mean that a

document filed w ith the Court will not be conside red an NOA. Even a pro se appe llant's le tter t o the C ourt "c an be seen as an effort by an appellant who . . . was perhaps not

aw ar e o f th e d if f e r e n c e b e tw e e n a d

ju d ic a ti o n an d

a p p e ll a te r e v ie w , to p u r s u e h is c la im to th e n e xt app rop ri ate lev el i n t he s y st em. " Cal ma v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 11, 15 (1996) ( further noting that pr o
se a pp e lla nt' s le tte r e xpre ssi nga de sir e to " ' fo llo w the le g a l fl ow ' c omb ine d wi th the dir e c tio n of thi s de sir e in w ri tin g to t

his Court , is su ff

ic ie nt, in thi s c a se , to satis fy the se c tio n 72 66 (a ) r e qu ir e me nt, as interpr eted in Chadwick , that an NOAreque st review by this Court"). I n th is i ns tanc e , a lth ou g h th e F or m 21- 41 38 fi le d b y

Mr . K ouva

ri s f a ils to e xplic itl y

e xpre ss an intent to seek judicia l review , it doe s ev i n ce a disag ree ment with the only Boa rd dec ision of
re c or d. Ho we ve r, wh e n Mr. Ko uv ari s file d his Fo rm 21 -4 13 8 with the B oa rd , it la c ke d a

ny ind ic ia of int e nt to se e k re vie w by the Court

. Th e do c ume nt h a d " No tic e of Di sa g re e me nt" wr itt e n a c ro ss4

the top; it not only

was filed w ith the Boa

rd, it also expressed the e x plicit intent to "file this notice of disag ree ment with the Depa rtment of Ve tera

ns Affa irs Boa

rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls." Thus, e ven lib e ra lly re a d, the c on te nt o f t

he fo rm and c ir c ums tanc e s o f f

ili ngit at th e B oa

rd do no t su pp or t a
c on c lus ion

that th e do c ume nt c on sti tut e d a mis fi le d NO A a t th a t ti me . U nd e r t he se c ir c ums tanc e s,
we ne e d n ot d e c ide wh e the r an NO A mis fi le d be low may be de e me d fi le d a t the Court on the date of the misfiling be low.

B. F orm 21-4138 filed at the Boa rd is a re quest for r econside ration. Piecemea l liti g ation g ener ally is not permissible. See Burton v. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 276, 277 (2001) ( per c uriam orde r) ( "We should not encour ag e the kind of piece meal litigation in which the a pp e lla nt h e re ha s e ng a g e d. " ); Fugere v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 103, 105 (1990) ( "[a]dvancing differ ent ar g uments at succe ssive stag es of the a ppellate pr ocess doe s not serve the interests of the parties or the Court" beca

use piec emea l liti g ation hinders the de cisionmaking proce ss). Wit h reg ard to Mr. Kouvar is's be lated conte ntion that the Form 21-4138 h e fi l ed wi t h the B oard c onstitut ed a reque st for re consideration, Mr. Kouvaris' s counsel informed the C ourt that he filed the appea l based on the letter Mr . Kouvar is had rec eived f rom the RO and without havingthe opportunity to review the VA c laims file. Additionally , when he responde d to the show ca use orde r he ha d not y et see n the For m 21-4138 his client had filed with the Boa rd. Upon rec eipt of a copy of the F orm 21-4138 filed below, Mr. Kouva

ris promptly

raised the alternative argument that it const i t u t ed a reque st for
re c on sid e ratio n, a

nd so inf or me d the Se c re tary of the re a so n fo r thi s late argume nt. Mr . K ou va ri s
a lso no te s th a t it

wa s th e RO that or ig ina lly imp lied that th e F or

m 21 -4 13 8 in dic a te d a

n in te nt t o appea l the matter to the Court, and prompted Mr. Kouvar is to file an appe al with the Court. Mr. Kouvar is further a

rg ues that inasmuch a s his filing wa s forwa rded by the B oard to the RO a

nd then returne d to Mr. Kouvar is w ith the sug g estion that if he wanted to appea l the decision of the B oard he should file an a

ppeal with the Court, it wa s rea sonable for Mr. K ouvaris, who wa s pro se at the time, to believe the B oard w as not g oing to rec onsider his claim and that his only avenue for r eview was to appe al to the Court. Under these circ umstances, Mr. Kouvar is's a lternative a rg ument will be considere d. Se e Ma

gg itt v . W est , 202 F.3d 1370, 1377- 78 (F ed. C ir. 2000) (if Court has jurisdiction over the claim, issues prese nted for the first time on appea l may be addr essed, disre g arde d , or
rema nded bac k to the Boa

rd for further development)

.5

Pur su ant t o p ara g ra

ph(a ) o f 3 8 C. F .R. § 2 0. 10 01 , a mot ion fo r r e c on sid e ratio n mu st b e in writing and must include (1) the name of the veteran, (2) the applicable VA file number, and ( 3) the date of the B oard' s decision to be re considere d. Wit h the exception of the date of the B oard de cision to be re considere d, (which was apparent fr om the circ umstances, a s mentioned above ), the F orm 21- 41 38 fi le d b y Mr

. Ko uv ari s me t th e se re qu ir e me nts . A re qu e st f or re c on sid e ra

tio n mu st a lso se t f

or th the a lle g e d o bv iou s e rr or of fa c t or law in the a pp lic a ble de c isi on of the B oa

rd , o r o the r a

pp ro pr ia te basis for r equesting rec onsideration, 38 C.F.R. § 20.1001(a) , and the For m 21-4138 filed below by M r. Ko u v ar i s m ee t s t h i s re qu i re m en tas we l l

. S p ec i f i c a l l y , t h e f

o rm ex p l ai n s M r. Ko u v ar i s 's
asser tion that the B oard failed to pr operly consider medical a nd hospital recor ds that may provide the re quired ne x us for ser vice c onnection. Se e Car

pe nte r v . W

est , 11 Vet.App. 140, 146- 47 (1998) (B oard must re view all issues re asonably raised by liberal re ading of appe al). A re quest for r econside ration also should be filed spe cifica lly with the Direc tor , M a

n a g e me nt
and Ad min istratio n ( 01 E) , at th e B oa rd . 3 8 C. F .R. § 2 0. 10 01 (b ). I n li g ht o f t he ve te ra n- fr ie nd ly nature of the ve tera

ns benef its sy stem, howeve r, st rict compli ance as t o wher e within the B oard, or
even within VA , the motion for rec onsideration must be filed is not require d. See Jaquay v . Principi , 304 F.3d 1276, 1287 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002) (holding that the lang uag e of 38 C.F.R. § 20.1001 stating that motions for reconsider ation "must be filed at the foll owing addre ss" is m ere ly for the a dminist rative convenie nce of the Boa

rd). Acc ording ly , the Court concludes that Mr. Kouvar is's f iling constituted

a motion for rec onsideration, which is still pending be low. Cf

. Be y rlev . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 24, 28 (1996) ( "Whether

a docume nt is an NOD [Notice of D isag ree ment] i s a question of lawfor the Court t o d et er m i n e d e novo under 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)." ); Gibson v. Peak e , 2 2 V e t. A p p . 1 1 , 1 5 ( 2 0 0 7) (whe ther a

document constitutes a Substantive Appe al to the B oard is a ma t t er of law, w hich the Court review s de novo). Mor eo v er , beca use Mr. Kouva

ris filed with the B oard a motion for
rec onsideration, the f

inality of the B oard' s J uly

17, 2007, decision wa s abate d by that filing. Rosler v. De rwinski, 1 Vet.App. 241, 249 (1991). Mr. Kouvar is will have 120 day s from the issuanc e of a ny
un fa vo ra ble de c isi on

of the B oa rd Cha ir man on the mot ion fo r re c on sid e ra tio n to fi le an a

pp e a l in this Court, id

.6 IV . C ON CL USI ON Upon consider ation of the for eg oing, Mr . Kouvar is's a ppeal is d i smissed for lac k of jurisdiction.

APPEALDI SMI SSED.