Sneed v. McDonald
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7293
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Reginald Sneed, a veteran, died in an October 2003 nursing-home fire; his wife Marva Sneed claimed dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) based on service-connected conditions contributing to his death.
- The VA regional office and the Board denied Sneed’s claim; the Board mailed its adverse decision on April 5, 2011. The 120-day statutory appeal period to the Veterans Court expired August 3, 2011.
- On April 13, 2011 Sneed contacted attorney Katrina Eagle and sent case materials; on August 2, 2011 Eagle sent a letter analyzing the claim, declining representation, and (erroneously) stating an appeal deadline of August 5.
- Sneed contacted many attorneys in August but could not secure counsel and filed a pro se Notice of Appeal on September 1, 2011 (29 days late). The Veterans Court dismissed the appeal as untimely and denied equitable tolling.
- This Court previously remanded (Sneed II), holding attorney abandonment can justify tolling and that diligence findings were not made; on remand the Veterans Court again denied tolling, finding no attorney-client relationship and insufficient diligence; the Federal Circuit affirms for lack of diligence even assuming abandonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling of the 120-day veterans-court deadline is available based on attorney abandonment | Sneed: attorney abandonment by Eagle prevented timely filing and justifies equitable tolling | Govt: client bears attorney negligence; no extraordinary circumstance absent abandonment; Veterans Court found no abandonment | Equitable tolling is available in principle for attorney abandonment, but here tolling denied because plaintiff failed to show diligence |
| Whether an attorney-client relationship (precondition to abandonment) existed between Sneed and Eagle under California law | Sneed: preliminary consultations and Eagle’s August 2 letter supplying legal analysis created an implied-in-fact attorney-client relationship | Govt: no written or oral retainer, no fees paid or express agreement; Veterans Court applied California contract standard and found none | Court does not decide whether relationship existed; notes California law can recognize implied relationships but assumes abandonment for purposes of the opinion |
| Whether Sneed acted with reasonable diligence during the relevant period (April 13–Aug 2, 2011) | Sneed: relied on Eagle to file appeal and reasonably sought other counsel after Eagle’s letter; contacted multiple attorneys | Govt: Sneed received notice of deadline and did not confirm Eagle’s representation or filing; mere reliance or general negligence insufficient | Not diligent: Sneed had notice and objective basis to check Eagle’s status but did not confirm filing before deadline; failure to show diligence defeats tolling |
| Standard for equitable tolling in Veterans Court appeals (elements and burden) | Sneed: equitable tolling test applies; abandonment may satisfy extraordinary-circumstance prong | Govt: recognizes test but emphasizes client’s burden to prove both diligence and extraordinary circumstances; attorney negligence usually not enough | Reiterated two-element test (diligence and extraordinary circumstance); plaintiff bears burden; absence of diligence fatal here |
Key Cases Cited
- Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (attorney abandonment can be a narrow equitable exception excusing client from lawyer’s failures)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (attorney’s egregious misconduct may support equitable tolling where client acted diligently)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (plaintiff seeking equitable tolling must prove diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750 (equitable tolling elements are distinct elements the claimant must prove)
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (Veterans Court filing deadline is nonjurisdictional but is an important procedural rule)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (general rule that attorney absence does not excuse filing deadlines without exceptional circumstances)
- Sneed v. Shinseki (Sneed II), 737 F.3d 719 (Fed. Cir.) (held attorney abandonment may justify equitable tolling and remanded for diligence findings)
- Checo v. Shinseki, 748 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir.) (applies the stop-clock approach for tolling during the extraordinary-circumstance period)