Chullin v. McDonald
666 F. App'x 917
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Matko L. Chullin, a Marine veteran, received a 10% rating in 1969 and a 100% rating effective July 11, 2005 after a 2007 claim; he sought an earlier effective date and alleged clear and unmistakable error in the 1969 rating.
- The Board awarded an earlier effective date of July 11, 2004, and referred the CUE question to the RO; the RO denied CUE and Chullin filed administrative appeals and multiple requested hearings, several of which he missed or postponed.
- Chullin filed a motion to vacate the Board’s April 16, 2014 decision alleging due process violations; the Board denied the motion and subsequent motions for reconsideration.
- Chullin appealed to the Veterans Court; the Secretary moved to dismiss as untimely. The Veterans Court stayed for potential pro bono representation, then ordered Chullin to respond and granted three short extensions but denied a fourth extension and treated his prior submissions as his response, then granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss.
- Chullin appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing statutory/constitutional error and that his medical conditions warranted additional time or equitable tolling; the Federal Circuit reviewed only legal and constitutional claims and whether the Veterans Court abused discretion in denying the final extension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Veterans Court erred by denying a fourth extension to respond | Chullin: medical conditions (car accident, neuropsych eval, doctor’s letter) prevented timely response | Secretary: Veterans Court acted within its rules; earlier extensions were granted and evidence did not show extraordinary circumstances | Denial not an abuse of discretion; medical evidence insufficient to meet "extraordinary circumstances" for additional extension |
| Whether the Veterans Court’s dismissal raised statutory or regulatory questions | Chullin: VA used his medical conditions against him; implies error in law/regulation | Secretary: dismissal was procedural for untimeliness, applying existing law | No statute/regulation interpretation issue; court applied law to facts, so claim fails |
| Whether due process was violated by the RO or Board (hearing notice/opportunity) | Chullin: denied opportunity to present case and not informed of hearing date | Secretary: record shows multiple hearing opportunities, reschedulings at Chullin’s request, and no Board hearing he claims he missed | Court rejected due process claims; record shows opportunities and notifications were provided |
| Whether equitable tolling or excusing untimely notice of appeal was warranted | Chullin: medical impairments justified tolling/allowance of untimely appeal | Secretary: timeliness rules apply; Veterans Court reviewed evidence and declined equitable tolling | Federal Circuit cannot review Veterans Court’s factual equitable-tolling determinations; no jurisdiction to overturn that factual conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (veterans’ benefit entitlement is a property interest protected by Due Process)
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (U.S. 2011) (notice-of- appeal deadline to Veterans Court is nonjurisdictional)
- Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (motion for reconsideration restarts Veterans Court appeal period)
- Linville v. West, 165 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (same principle regarding filing period after Board reconsideration)
- Harms v. Nicholson, 489 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (motion to vacate treated as motion for reconsideration for timeliness)
- Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review factual determinations about equitable tolling)