Halseth v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs , 421 F. App'x 962 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • NOTE: This order is n0nprecedential.
    United States Court of AppeaIs
    for the Federal Circuit
    ALLAN G. HALSETH,
    Claiman,t-Appellcmt,
    V.
    ERIC K. SI'IINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
    AFFAIRS,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    0
    2009-7048
    Appea1 from the United States C0urt of Appea1s for
    Veterans C1aims in 05-3646, Judge R0bert N. Davis.
    ON MOTION
    Before RADER, Ch,ief Judge, LOUR1E and O’MALLEY, Crlr-
    cuit Ju,dges.
    RADER, Chief Judge.
    0 R D E R
    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to vacate the
    judgment of the United States C0urt of Appea1s for Veter-
    ams C1aims and to remand for further pr0ceedings.
    I'lALSETH V. DVA 2
    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. § 7
     266(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) (affirn1ing Court of Appea1s for Vet-
    erans Claims determination that period to appeal to that
    court is not subject to equitable tolling). In Henderson ex
    rel. Hen,derson v. S/tinseki, 
    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 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 ORnERE:o 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.
    la
    3
    HALSETH V. DVA
    FOR THE CoURT
    1‘1AY 25 2011
    lsi J an Horbal__v
    Date J an Horbaly
    Clerk
    cc: Martin V. Totaro, Esq.
    S
    Jane W. Vanneman, Esq.
    Issued As A Mandate: MA¥ 2 5 201
    FILED
    l.s. con oF meals FoR
    ms F§1i§RAL_czRcun
    |‘1AY 25 2011
    .I_N||I)lB\l¥
    Il.Bl
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2009-7048

Citation Numbers: 421 Fed. Appx. 962, 421 F. App'x 962

Judges: Lourie, O'Malley, Rader

Filed Date: 5/25/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023