Opinion ID: 2652135
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motions for an Extension of Time

Text: Dixon argues that the Veterans Court abused its discretion in denying his motion for an extension of time given that the VA actively obstructed his attorney’s efforts to obtain and review his claims file. In support, he contends that the court’s refusal to grant LeBoeuf adequate time to secure copies of relevant medical records is 8 DIXON v. SHINSEKI contrary to this court’s decision in Barrett v. Nicholson, 466 F.3d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Barrett II”), and serves to “reward delay and obstruction by the [VA].” We agree under the circumstances of this case. “Because many veterans lack the knowledge and re- sources necessary to locate relevant records, Congress has appropriately placed the burden on the VA to ensure that all relevant service medical records are obtained and fully evaluated.” Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In Barrett II, we explicitly rejected the government’s argument that while the VA had a duty to produce records related to the merits of a veteran’s disability claim, it was subject to no such obligation with respect to a veteran’s motion seeking equitable tolling of the 120-day deadline for appealing to the Veterans Court. 466 F.3d at 1042-44. We explained that “where evidence required to prove a fact is peculiarly within the knowledge and competence of one of the parties, fairness requires that party to bear the burden of coming forward.” Id. at 1042 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Because the VA typically has “superior access to a veteran’s [claims] file and the facts bearing on jurisdiction,” it has an affirmative obligation “to come forward with” evidence relevant to a veteran’s entitlement to equitable tolling “and to develop additional facts uniquely within its competence” on that issue. 3 Id. at 1042-43. 3 Although the government acknowledges that the VA is required to produce relevant records from a veteran’s claims file during the initial adjudication of a request for equitable tolling, it argues that Barrett II imposes no such obligation when a veteran subsequently seeks reconsideration of a decision denying equitable tolling. We find the government’s reading of Barrett II to be unduly cramped. Nothing in that decision suggests that the government’s obligation to produce records relevant to a DIXON v. SHINSEKI 9 Here, however, the VA did not come forward with the evidence in its possession related to Dixon’s claim for equitable tolling, but instead obstructed the diligent efforts by LeBoeuf to gain access to Dixon’s claims file prior to the October 4, 2012 motion for reconsideration filing deadline set by the Veterans Court. The VA refused to send LeBoeuf a copy of the file, and while it allowed a legal assistant from LeBoeuf’s firm to review the file for a limited period of time at its Denver regional office, she was not allowed “enough time to review the documents thoroughly.” J.A. 171. Nor was she permitted to make copies of any documents. Furthermore, although VA representatives agreed to copy twenty to thirty documents from the claims file and send them to LeBoeuf, he had not received them by the October 4, 2012 filing deadline. Given that the VA, despite diligent efforts by LeBoeuf, failed to timely produce relevant documents from Dixon’s claims file, and, as discussed below, the Veterans Court was, under the circumstances here, obligated to consider the record, the Veterans Court erred in refusing to grant an extension of time. Although “[t]he Veterans Court has broad discretion to interpret and apply its Rules of Practice and Procedure,” Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2010), we see no reasonable justification for the court’s refusal to grant an extension of time here. Where a litigant is unjustifiably denied timely access to pertinent evidence in the possession of the opposing party, fairness dictates that he be granted an extension of time sufficient to allow him to obtain and review such evidence. See Baron Servs., Inc. v. Media Weather Innovations LLC, 717 F.3d 907, 912-13 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (concluding that a district court abused its discretion when it refused to delay proceedings in order to allow a claim for equitable tolling does not apply in the context of a motion for reconsideration. 10 DIXON v. SHINSEKI litigant sufficient time to obtain relevant evidence); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C., 527 F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (concluding that a district court abused its discretion in refusing to provide a litigant with adequate time to conduct discovery before ruling on the merits of a claim). Veterans not infrequently encounter significant difficulties when attempting to obtain pertinent medical records from the VA. See, e.g., Moore, 555 F.3d at 1374 (veteran’s medical records were “‘lost in the bowels’ of the National Personnel Records Center” for several years and were located only after the veteran obtained counsel and appealed to this court); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 369 (2005) (veteran’s medical records were lost and never located); Marciniak v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 198, 200 (1997), aff’d sub nom. Marciniak v. West, 168 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (the VA “twice lost” the veteran’s claims file). Denying a motion for an extension of time in situations in which the VA runs out the clock, refusing to produce relevant medical evidence until after the deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration has passed, serves only to reward delay and obstruction on the agency’s part. See Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasizing that “[t]he VA disability compensation system is not meant to be a trap for the unwary, or a stratagem to deny compensation to a veteran who has a valid claim”).