William Rickett v. Eric K. Shinseki
26 Vet. App. 210
Vet. App.2013Background
- Rickett timely filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) within 120 days of the Board’s November 5, 2008 decision but sent a misdirected letter to VA OGC (022D).
- The January 8, 2009 letter to OGC stated an intent to appeal to the Courts; it was stamped by VA as appeals and forwarded to the RO.
- The 120-day period expired on March 6, 2009, without Court action, and Rickett learned of the misfiling in April 2009, filing an NOA with the Court on April 14, 2009.
- Equitable tolling of the 120-day period was previously deemed impermissible, leading to dismissal; Henderson III and subsequent precedents changed the jurisdictional view of tolling.
- This decision holds that equitable tolling is warranted under the totality of the circumstances for timely misfilings, even when misfiled at VA offices other than the Court, and Rickett’s case is thus reinstated.
- The Court orders denial of the Secretary’s dismissal motion, certification of service, and return for further proceedings before a single Judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies to timely misfilings made at locations other than the Court. | Rickett argues tolling should apply due to timely misfiling at OGC within the 120-day period. | Secretary contends Reed restricts tolling to misfilings at certain VA locations. | Yes; tolling applies under totality of circumstances. |
| What criteria govern due diligence in timely misfiling cases after Henderson III. | Due diligence should be relaxed for timely misfilings by pro se appellants. | Due diligence should be strict or narrowly defined. | Totality-of-circumstances fitness governs due diligence. |
| Whether the misfiling at OGC (022D) can trigger tolling. | Misfiling at OGC shows intent to appeal and put VA on notice. | Location of misfiling is determinative; OGC is not the Court. | Location flexibility permitted under the totality framework. |
| Whether Reed v. Principi should be overruled or limited in light of Henderson III. | Reed should be overruled as outdated by recent Federal Circuit decisions. | Reed remains instructive for misfiling scenarios. | Reed is overtaken by later Federal Circuit precedents; tolling analysis updated. |
| Whether Rule 4(a) or Court rulemaking should govern the tolling standard going forward. | Rulemaking is appropriate to codify a flexible tolling standard. | Rulemaking should not create indeterminate standards. | Majority relies on rulemaking; concurrent views urge restraint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey (Edward) v. Principi, 351 F.3d 1381 (Fed.Cir.2003) (due diligence for timely misfiling at RO supports tolling when intended as NOA)
- Santana-Venegas v. Principi, 314 F.3d 1293 (Fed.Cir.2002) (misfiling at RO from origin supports tolling; diligence presumed)
- Brandenburg v. Principi, 371 F.3d 1362 (Fed.Cir.2004) (focus on due diligence and clear intent to seek review; timely misfiling can toll)
- Jaquay v. Principi, 304 F.3d 1276 (Fed.Cir.2002) (misfiling within VA system can satisfy diligence; Rosier abatement discussed)
- Hunt v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 519 (2006) (three criteria for equitable tolling in misfiling cases: due diligence, intent, notice)
- Reed v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 380 (2003) (untimely misfiling; distinguishable from timely misfilings)