Palmer v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • NOTE: ThiS order is nonprecedential
    United States Court of AppeaIs
    for the FederaI Circuit
    LAWRENCE E. PALMER,
    Claiman,t-Appellcmt, ~
    V.
    ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
    AFFAIRS, ``
    Respondent~Appellee.
    2010-7054
    Appeal from the United States C0urt of Appea1s for
    Veterans C1aims in case n0. 06-952, Judge Alan G. Lance,
    Sr.
    ON MOTION
    Bef0re RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and O’MALLEY, Cir-
    wit Ju,dges.
    RADER, Chief Judge.
    0 R D E R
    The Secretai'y of Veterans Aff``airs moves without op-
    position t0 vacate the judgment of the United States
    PALMER V. DVA 2
    Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand for
    further proceedings
    The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Court
    of Veterans Claims more than 120 days after the B0ard of
    Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in his case. That
    court dismissed the appeal as unti1nely, concluding that
    the 120-day appeal period established by 
    38 U.S.C. § 7266
    (a) for seeking review of Board of Veterans’ Appeals
    decisions is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable
    tolling The appellant sought this court's revie'w.
    This court stayed the briefing schedule in this appeal
    pending the United States Supreme Court’s review of our
    decision in Henderson v. Shinseki, 
    589 F.3d 1201
     (Fed.
    Cir. 2009) (en bane) (affirming Court of Appeals for Vet-
    erans Claims determination that period to appeal to that
    court is not subject to equitable tolling). In Henders0n, ex
    rel. Henderson o. Shinseki, 
    131 S.Ct. 1197
     (``20'11), the
    Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision and con-
    cluded that the 120-day deadline for filing an appeal with
    the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have
    jurisdictional consequences Because the Court of Ap-
    peals for Veterans Claims erred in concluding that the
    appeal deadline established by § 7266(a) is jurisdictional,
    we vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’
    judgment and remand for further proceedings
    Accordingly,
    IT ls 0RDERED THAT:
    (1) The motion is granted The judgment is vacated
    and the case is remanded for further proceedings
    (2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
    3
    HAY 2 5 2011
    Date
    cci William E. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
    Ellen M. Lynch, Esq.
    s2(}
    PALMER v. DvA
    FoR THE CoURT
    /s/ J an Horb aly
    J an Horbaly
    Clerk
    Issued As A Mandate: "AY 2 5  so
    FlLEO ``
    I.s. count or APPEALs ron
    me FEn£nAz_ macon
    r1AY 35 2011
    3ANl'l0RBALY
    CLEH(
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2010-7054

Judges: Rader, Lourie, O'Malley

Filed Date: 5/25/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024