Newberry v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • NOTE: This order is n0nprecedential.
    United States Court of A11peaIs
    for the FederaI Circuit
    THOMAS E. NEWBERRY,
    Claimant-Appellant, -
    V.
    ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
    AFFAIRS,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    2011-7042
    Appea1 from the United States Court of Appea1s for
    Veterar1s C1aims in case no. 10-2010, Chief Judge Bruce
    E. Kasold.
    ON MOTION
    Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and PROST, C'ircuit Judges.
    GAJARSA, Circuit JucZge.
    ORDER
    Thomas E. NeWberry moves without opposition for re-
    consideration of this c0urt's order dismissing his appeal
    for failure to file a brief, to vacate the judgment of the
    NEWBERRY V. DVA 2
    United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and
    to remand for further proceedings in light of the United
    States Supreme Court’s decision in Henderson ex rel.
    Henders0n v. Shinseki, 
    131 S.Ct. 1197
     (U.S.,2011).
    The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Court
    of Veterans Claims more than 120 days after the Board of
    Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in his case. The
    Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed the
    appellant’s appeal as untimely, concluding that there is
    no equitable tolling exception to the 120-day judicial
    appeal period established by 
    38 U.S.C. § 7266
    (a) for
    appealing Board of Veterans’ Appea1s decisions
    ln Henderson, the Supre-me Court reversed this
    court’s decision in Hen,derson, v. Shin.seki, 
    589 F.3d 1201
    (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc), concluding that the 120-day
    deadline for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals for
    Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional conse-
    quences. We reinstate NeWberry’s appeal, vacate the
    Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgment, and
    remand for further proceedings
    Accordingly,
    IT ls OR1)ERED THA'1‘:
    (1) The motion for reconsideration is granted. The
    mandate is recalled, this court’s dismissal order is va-
    cated, and the case is reinstated.
    (2) The motion to remand is granted The judgment
    is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceed~
    1ngs.
    (3) All sides shall bear their own costS.
    3
    NEWBERRY v. DvA
    FoR THE CoURT
    "AY 2 1  /s/ Jan Horbaly
    Date J an Horbaly
    C1erk
    cc: LaWrence T. Kass, Esq.
    S
    Lauren S. Moore, Esq.
    Issued As A Mandate:  2 7
    F
    u.s. com f)lF§i»,P1-:ALs ma
    me FEnEmL c1RculT
    HA¥ 2 7 2011
    wmata
    came
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2011-7042

Judges: Gajarsa, Mayer, Prost

Filed Date: 5/27/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024