Opinion ID: 813231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Stewart served on active duty from May 1977 through October 1981 and spent time in active duty training from July 1976 to October 1976. During that time, he was treated for eye problems, but his examination upon separation from service contained no notation that he had residual eye conditions related to his in-service eye treatments, and an examination conducted by the Veterans Administration in 1986 showed no eye abnormalities. In April 2002, Stewart received an eye examination and was found to have “vitreous floaters and a possible epiretinal membrane in the left eye.” He sought benefits from the VA. A VA eye examination was scheduled for Stewart in May 2008 but he did not attend. On November 20, 2008, the Board found that Stewart “is not currently diagnosed as having an eye disability attributable to his period of active service,” and therefore concluded that “[t]he criteria for service connection for a bilateral eye 3 CARL STEWART v. SHINSEKI disability have not been met.” The Board’s decision was accompanied by VA Form 4597 informing Stewart of his right to appeal and of the 120-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal. Stewart filed a timely motion to reconsider, which was denied on July 14, 2009. Stewart v. Shinseki (“CAVC Op.”), No. 10-3079, 2012 WL 1353148, at  (Vet. App. Apr. 19, 2012). Almost a year later, on July 12, 2010, Stewart sought to vacate the November 2008 decision, but was denied. Id. Stewart filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims on September 13, 2010. Id. The Veterans Court ordered Stewart to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id. Stewart responded that his appeal should not be dismissed “because of trickery, concealment of facts, and misconduct.” Id. Relying on Henderson v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 217, 22021 (2008), aff’d sub nom. Henderson v. Shinseki, 589 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2009), rev’d, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (2011), the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed Stewart’s appeal as untimely. CAVC Op. at . In Henderson v. Peake, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims had held that the 120-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal was jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. 22 Vet. App. at 221. While Stewart was seeking reconsideration of this ruling, the Supreme Court reversed Henderson v. Peake, and Stewart’s case was stayed. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims decided that the 120-day deadline is subject to equitable tolling within the parameters established by Bailey v. West, 160 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). Bove v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App.