throbber

`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`MARY STERLING,
`Claimant-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`DAVID J. SHULKIN, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
`AFFAIRS,
`Respondent-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2017-1049
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
`Veterans Claims in No. 16-277, Senior Judge Lawrence B.
`Hagel.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: February 15, 2018
`______________________
`
`JENNINGS JONES, III, Lake Charles, LA, argued for
`
`claimant-appellant.
`
`RETA EMMA BEZAK, Commercial Litigation Branch,
`
`Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
`Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also
`represented by ERIC JOHN SINGLEY, CHAD A. READLER,
`ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., L. MISHA PREHEIM; Y. KEN
`LEE, AMANDA BLACKMON, Office of General Counsel,
`
`

`

`
`
` 2
`
` STERLING v. SHULKIN
`
`United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washing-
`ton, DC.
`
`______________________
`
`Before MOORE, MAYER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
`HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
`Mary Sterling appeals from a decision by the U.S.
`Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissing her
`appeal as untimely. Because the Veterans Court failed to
`consider whether equitable tolling is warranted, we
`vacate and remand.
`
`I
`The facts here are undisputed. On September 22,
`2015, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals issued a decision
`denying Mrs. Sterling’s claim for service connection for
`the cause of her veteran-husband’s death. The decision
`was mailed to an address on Dixy Drive in Lake Charles,
`Louisiana. The mailing was returned to the Board as
`undeliverable. In October, Mrs. Sterling contacted the
`Board to inquire about the status of her case. At that
`time, she confirmed the Dixy Drive address. On Novem-
`ber 17, 2015, Mrs. Sterling’s address on file was changed
`to one on 4th Street in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The next
`day, the Board decision was remailed to Mrs. Sterling at
`the 4th Street address. Mrs. Sterling received the Board
`decision on November 20, 2015. Acting pro se, she filed a
`Notice of Appeal. The Veterans Court received her notice
`on January 21, 2016, 121 days after the Board decision
`and one day after the filing deadline. The Veterans Court
`determined that Mrs. Sterling’s Notice of Appeal was
`untimely and dismissed her appeal. Mrs. Sterling ap-
`peals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C.
`§ 7292(a), (c), (d)(1).
`
`

`

`STERLING v. SHULKIN
`
`3
`
`II
`We have exclusive jurisdiction to decide appeals that
`challenge the Veterans Court’s legal determinations,
`including the interpretation or validity of any statute or
`regulation. Id. We review the Veterans Court’s legal
`determinations without deference. Checo v. Shinseki, 748
`F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Unless an appeal pre-
`sents a constitutional issue, we may not review factual
`challenges. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
`In dismissing Mrs. Sterling’s appeal, the Veterans
`Court applied the rule outlined in Davis v. Prinicipi:
`For purposes of determining whether an NOA is
`timely filed under section 7266(a) within the 120-
`day period from the Board's mailing of notice of its
`decision, the Court applies to the Board's mailing
`of a decision copy under section 7104(e) a “pre-
`sumption of regularity” that the Secretary and the
`Board discharged their official duties by mailing
`the decision copy to the claimant and to the
`claimant's representative, if any, at each of their
`last known mailing addresses on the date on
`which the decision is issued. . . . [T]he presump-
`tion of regularity of mailing has been rebutted
`where a copy of a [Board] decision that is mailed
`to a claimant at his or her last known address is
`returned as undeliverable by the USPS and the
`claimant's claims file discloses other possible and
`plausible addresses that were available to the
`Secretary at the time of the [Board] decision.
`17 Vet. App. 29, 36–37 (2003) (citations omitted); J.A. 2.
`Because the Secretary lacked any other “possible and
`plausible” address to mail the Board decision in Septem-
`ber 2015, the Veterans Court found that Mrs. Sterling
`failed to rebut the presumption of regularity. J.A. 2.
`
`

`

`
`
` 4
`
` STERLING v. SHULKIN
`
`Mrs. Sterling argues that the Veterans Court erred in
`applying Davis, and requests we hold that “in order to
`establish a rebuttal of the presumption of regularity, the
`veteran only needs to establish that the mailing was not
`received by the veteran.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 3. We
`decline to do so.
`The time bar statute is 38 U.S.C. § 7266, which states
`that a notice of appeal must be filed “within 120 days
`after the date on which notice of the decision is mailed
`pursuant to section 7104(e) of this title.”
` Section
`7104(e)(1) requires the Board to “promptly mail a copy of
`its written decision to the claimant at the last known
`address of the claimant.” Based on the statutory lan-
`guage, the Veterans Court correctly applied the presump-
`tion of regularity. It is not enough for Mrs. Sterling to
`show that she did not receive the mailing if the Board did
`not have any alternative address to send the decision.
`The Veterans Court did err, however, in failing to
`consider whether Mrs. Sterling’s appeal warranted equi-
`table tolling. See J.A. 3. A litigant seeking equitable
`tolling bears the burden of establishing that (1) she has
`been pursuing her rights diligently, and (2) that some
`extraordinary circumstance prevented timely
`filing.
`Sneed v. Shinseki, 737 F.3d 719, 725 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The
`120-day deadline for filing appeals to the Veterans Court
`is subject to equitable tolling. Id.
`Whether equitable tolling applies is a flexible inquiry,
`determined on a case-by-case basis. Toomer v. McDonald,
`783 F.3d 1229, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In past cases, we
`have found that equitable tolling could apply due to:
`incapacitation caused by mental or physical illness, see
`Barrett v. Principi, 363 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Arbas
`v. Nicholson, 403 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005); the veteran’s
`attorney abandoning the appeal, see Sneed, 737 F.3d at
`725–29; the veteran misfiling a notice of appeal, Jaquay v.
`Principi, 304 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2002); and the veteran
`
`

`

`STERLING v. SHULKIN
`
`5
`
`using an incorrect form to file a notice of appeal, Bailey v.
`Principi, 351 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`Here, we note that Mrs. Sterling appears to have ac-
`tively contacted the Board regarding the status of her
`case and diligently updated her address. The Veterans
`Court also noted that Mrs. Sterling asserted that she was
`homeless for several years. J.A. 2. Moreover, the Veter-
`ans Court received her Notice of Appeal a mere one day
`after the 120 day deadline. Although we make no deter-
`mination as to whether the facts of this case warrant
`equitable tolling, we find that the Veterans Court erred
`by not considering whether equitable tolling should apply.
`Accordingly, we remand for the Veterans Court to
`consider whether the facts of this case warrant equitable
`tolling.
`
`VACATED AND REMANDED
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket