Opinion ID: 210673
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Good Cause for Delay in Filing of Appeal

Text: 2007-3007 5 While the regulations do not establish any specific test for determination of good cause being shown for the untimely filing of an appeal, this court has noted “that ‘broad equitable principles of justice and good conscience’ should be applied in good cause determinations.” Walls v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 29 F.3d 1578, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting Alonzo v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980)). However, “whether the regulatory time limit for an appeal should be waived based upon a showing of good cause is a matter committed to the Board's discretion and this court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the Board.” Mendoza v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 966 F.2d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc). Mr. White contends that his appeal should not have been dismissed because he had good cause for the late filing. In support of this argument Mr. White cites health problems of his representative and his belief that the time period did not begin to run until he had actually received the letter. He also urges us to consider that the five day delay was not prejudicial to the agency, especially in light of the significant delay by the agency in issuing its final decision. However, the Board did consider the short length of Mr. White’s delay in filing but recognized that this court has held that even minimal delays do not justify a waiver of the filing deadline if a good reason for the delay is not show. See Rowe v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 802 F.2d 434, 437-38 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding no good cause to excuse fourday delay in filing). The Board found that Mr. White had not shown that his representative’s health problems hindered the timely filing of his appeal and that Mr. White had not provided any evidence to support his claim that he was diligent in attempting to file his appeal. Specifically, the Board found that Mr. White had a 2007-3007 6 personal responsibility to monitor the progress of his appeal and that he had made no such showing. See Rowe, 802 F.2d at 437-38. These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Therefore, the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that Mr. White had failed to show good cause for his delay in filing and that the filing deadline should be waived.