# Ashley v. Derwinski

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · January 9, 1992 · 2 Vet. App. 62

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6608959

## Case

- **Full name:** Phyllis D. ASHLEY v. Edward J. DERWINSKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** January 9, 1992
- **Citations:** 2 Vet. App. 62; 1992 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 7; 1992 WL 1653
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Unanimous opinion by Ivers
- **Judges:** Farley, Ivers, Mankin
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6608959

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the Court must apply a “presumption of regularity” to “official acts of public officers, and in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties”
- holding that the presumption of regularity applies to official acts of public officers absent clear evidence to the contrary
- holding that the date of actual receipt was the date on which the 120-day period of section 7266(a) began to run

## Opinion text

IVERS, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the opinion of the Court. However, in reviewing the record in this case, I am left with the impression that appellant’s representatives may have had notice, either actual or, at a minimum, constructive of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) decision of October 24, 1990. Thus, either through an oversight or, in a manner calculated to establish a point of law, the time for filing of a Notice of Appeal was allowed to expire. In either case, had the Secretary instituted a system of accountability for mailing, and, thus, been in a position to establish that a copy of the BVA decision was mailed to both appellant and counsel, appellant’s right to appeal would have been lost.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6608959. Public record. Not legal advice.