Case Name: Sherman RAYFORD, Claimant-Appellant, v. Robert A. McDONALD, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-05
Citations: 582 F. App'x 875
Docket Number: No. 2014-7083
Parties: Sherman RAYFORD, Claimant-Appellant, v. Robert A. McDONALD, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 875–876

Head Matter:
Sherman RAYFORD, Claimant-Appellant, v. Robert A. McDONALD, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 2014-7083.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Nov. 5, 2014.
Srecko Vidmar, Attorney, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Jessica A. Black Livingston, Attorney, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Denver, CO, for Claimant-Appellant.
Michael D. Snyder, Trial Attorney Department of Justice, David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Rachael Brant, Attorney, Department of Veterans Affairs Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON MOTION
ORDER
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to waive the requirements of Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and to remand this appeal for further proceedings.
On May 21, 2013, the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) denied Sherman Ray-ford's claim for service-connected benefits. Mr. Rayford, however, asserts that the Board's decision was mailed to an incorrect address and that he did not receive it until August 2013. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) received Mr. Rayford's notice of appeal on October 22, 2013, and on April 1, 2014, the Veterans Court dismissed his appeal as untimely.
In the interest of judicial economy, the court grants the Secretary's motion to remand for the Veterans Court to consider, in the first instance, whether the deadline for filing the notice of appeal in this case should be equitably tolled in light of this court's decision in Checo v. Shinseki, 748 F.3d 1373 (Fed.Cir.2014).
Accordingly,
It Is Ordered That:
(1) The motion is granted. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.