Anania v. McDonough, 1f4th1019

Roy Anania sought increased VA benefits; VA issued a rating decision in Feb. 2009 and notified him March 3, 2009.
A Statement of the Case issued Dec. 4, 2009 set the deadline for a substantive appeal (VA Form 9 or equivalent) as March 3, 2010 (one year from the mailing date).
Counsel Kenneth Carpenter later submitted an affidavit stating he mailed a substantive appeal to the Waco Regional Office on January 18, 2010 (within the deadline).
The VA claims it did not receive the appeal until June 29, 2012; the Board and the Veterans Court treated Carpenter’s affidavit as “self‑serving” and insufficient to invoke the common‑law mailbox rule.
The Federal Circuit held the Veterans Court erred in adopting a per se rule excluding party affidavits; because the Government did not challenge the affidavit’s credibility or substance, the Veterans Court’s decision was reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a party’s (or counsel’s) sworn affidavit can invoke the common‑law mailbox rule to presume receipt of a mailed filing	Anania: Counsel’s sworn affidavit that he mailed the substantive appeal (properly addressed and mailed on Jan. 18, 2010) is credible evidence sufficient to trigger the presumption of receipt	Government/Veterans Court: Self‑serving affidavits are per se insufficient; independent proof (postmark, dated receipt, third‑party evidence) is required	Federal Circuit: Reversed; party affidavits are not per se insufficient — they can be credible evidence to invoke the mailbox rule; the Veterans Court erred in applying a bright‑line exclusionary rule
Whether Carpenter’s affidavit was conclusory or otherwise inadequate here	Anania: The affidavit states mailing, address, and date — sufficient specificity to meet Rios I standard	Government: Characterized the affidavit as conclusory and relied on absence of VA records	Held: The affidavit was not conclusory on the material points (address, date, mailing); Government did not dispute substance or credibility, so the presumption may attach

Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1884) (articulates the common‑law mailbox rule presuming receipt of properly mailed letters)
Rios v. Nicholson, 490 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding the common‑law mailbox rule applies to Veterans Court filings and specifying proof required to invoke presumption)
Schikore v. BankAmerica Supplemental Retirement Plan, 269 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2001) (sworn statement may be credible evidence of mailing; factfinder assesses sufficiency)
Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges Inc., 761 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2014) (self‑serving affidavits can implicate the mailbox presumption though may create a weak presumption depending on circumstances)
Custer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 503 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2007) (sworn statements from employees are credible evidence for mailbox rule inquiries)
Meckel v. Continental Resources Co., 758 F.2d 811 (2d Cir. 1985) (affidavits and evidence of regular mailing procedures can establish proof of mailing despite being self‑serving)
Fithian v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 146 (Vet. App. 2010) (Veterans Court decision rejecting an affidavit as insufficient in its facts — distinguished by the Federal Circuit)
Estate of Wood v. Commissioner, 909 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir. 1990) (tax §7502 context holding self‑serving testimony alone may be insufficient; court distinguishes tax mailbox rule from common‑law rule)