Sneed v. Shinseki
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24399
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Ms. Sneed, survivor of veteran Reginald A. Sneed, sought VA survivor benefits and was denied by the Board in 2011.
- Her notice of appeal to the Veterans Court was due August 3, 2011; she sought counsel from Katrina Eagle.
- On August 2, 2011 Eagle advised she would not represent and incorrectly told the NOA deadline was August 5; Sneed then sought another attorney but filed pro se on September 1, 2011.
- The Veterans Court dismissed for failure to timely file; Sneed argued equitable tolling due to attorney abandonment.
- After dismissal, Sneed retained counsel; the Veterans Court briefly stayed appeals, then indicated tolling depended on a proper standard.
- This court vacates and remands to reconsider Sneed’s equitable tolling argument under the correct standard, including the possibility of attorney abandonment as a basis for tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney abandonment can justify equitable tolling under §7266(a). | Sneed argues abandonment constitutes extraordinary circumstances warranting tolling. | Secretary contends abandonment is not a valid basis for tolling in this civil context and that diligence failed. | Yes, attorney abandonment can justify equitable tolling under the proper standard. |
| Whether the Veterans Court applied an improper standard restricting tolling to listed scenarios. | The court erred by treating abandonment as outside the tolling framework and by narrowing to specific examples. | The Veterans Court used existing precedents to assess diligence and extraordinary circumstances. | The Veterans Court applied an improperly narrow standard and should consider abandonment-based tolling. |
| Whether §7266(a) is subject to flexible equitable tolling in veterans benefits appeals. | Equitable tolling should apply consistent with Irwin and subsequent veterans cases, including Maples/Holland logic. | The government argues for a constrained interpretation post-Henderson, potentially limiting tolling. | §7266(a) is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate circumstances. |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s legal standard on tolling here. | The court can review legal standards and their application under §7292(a). | The Secretary argues jurisdiction is limited to statutory interpretation and not factual reweighing. | The court has jurisdiction to assess whether the Veterans Court applied the correct legal standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. West, 160 F.3d 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998) (equitable tolling applied to §7266(a))
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (U.S. 2011) (jurisdictional distinction between Article III and Article I tribunals; tolling issue remanded)
- Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (U.S. 2012) (attorney abandonment can justify equitable tolling; near-total communication failure)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (egregious attorney misconduct may toll; distinction from garden-variety neglect)
- Mapu v. Nicholson, 397 F.3d 1375 (Fed.Cir.2005) (flexible equitable tolling; avoid rigid patterns; jurisdiction to review legal standards)
- Nelson v. Nicholson, 489 F.3d 1380 (Fed.Cir.2007) (equitable tolling applicability in veteran claims after Irwin)
- Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370 (Fed.Cir.2004) (jurisdiction to review legal standards; equal protection of tolling analysis)
- Bailey v. Principi, 351 F.3d 1381 (Fed.Cir.2003) (misfiling and form issues; tolling considerations)
- Barrett v. Principi, 363 F.3d 1316 (Fed.Cir.2004) (mental illness tolling considerations)
- Arbas v. Nicholson, 403 F.3d 1379 (Fed.Cir.2005) (illness-based tolling considerations)