Legal Opinion · Dissent

David J. Harms v. R. James Nicholson

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Decided August 8, 2006No. 03-2038Published

1DissentSchoelen, Judge

As a preliminary matter, it is clear that the appeal of the underlying June 13, 2002, Board decision is untimely. The decision in Browne v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 278 (2002), is a logical extension of the longstanding tolling principle articulated in Rosler v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 241 (1991). Because the motion to vacate in this case was filed more than 120 days after the date of mailing of the underlying Board decision, the appeal of the underlying Board decision is untimely and must be dismissed. However, for the reasons stated below, I disagree with the holding that the Court lacks…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
  2. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brotherhood of Locomotive EngineersSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Russell v. PrincipiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1992
  4. Rosler v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1991
  5. James P. Mayer, Claimant-Appellant v. Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veterans AffairsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API