Hinojosa v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs , 424 F. App'x 951 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • NOTE: This order is nonprecedential
    United States Court of AppeaIs
    for the Federal Circuit
    EDUARDO H. HINOJOSA,
    Claimant-Appellant, ~
    V.
    ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
    AFFAIRS, `°
    Resp0ndent-Appellee.
    2010-7099
    Appeal from the United States C0urt of Appea1s for
    Veterans C1airns in case n0. 10-258, Judge R0nald M.
    H01daway.
    ON MOTION
    Bef0re RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and O'MALLEY,
    Circu.it Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    0 R D E R
    HlNOJOSA V. DVA 2
    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to vacate the
    judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veter-
    ans 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 Board of
    Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in his case. That
    court dismissed the appeal as untimely, 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 review.
    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 banc) (affirming Court of Appeals_for Vet-
    erans Claims determination that period to appeal to that
    court is not subject to equitable tol1ing). In Hénderson ex
    rel. HerLders0n u. Shin,seki, 
    131 S.Ct. 1197
     (2011), 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 C1aims 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 ORDERED 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
    HINOJOSA V. DVA
    F0R THE CoURT
    HA¥ 2 5  /s/ J an Horhaly
    Date J an Horbaly
    cc: Eduardo H. Hinojosa
    Tara K. Hogan, Esq.
    s20
    Clerk
    Issued As A Mandate:  2 5
    FlLED
    l.s. ccom or APPa\La ma
    rr-us FEo£RAL cmcurr
    l1AY 25 2011
    lAN_HORBALY
    C|.Elil
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2010-7099

Citation Numbers: 424 F. App'x 951

Judges: Lourie, O'Malley, Rader

Filed Date: 5/25/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023