# Henderson v. Shinseki

> Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · December 17, 2009 · 589 F.3d 1201

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9841538

## Case

- **Full name:** David L. HENDERSON, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- **Decided:** December 17, 2009
- **Citations:** 589 F.3d 1201; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 28173; 2009 WL 4842604
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dyk
- **Judges:** Michel, Newman, Mayer, Lourie, Rader, Schall, Bryson, Gajarsa, Linn, Dyk, Prost, Moore
- **Cited by:** 71 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed by Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (2011).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9841538

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting Congress’ recognition of the “strongly and uniquely pro-claimant system of awarding benefits to veterans”
- holding that equitable tolling of the time to file an appeal with the Court is not available under any circumstances
- stating that “[t]he majority seizes” upon this sentence from Bowles
- affirming Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that period to appeal to that court is not subject to equitable tolling

## Opinion text

DYK, Circuit Judge,
with whom GAJARSA and MOORE, Circuit Judges,
join, concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court, but I also agree with Judge Mayer that the rigid *1221 deadline of the existing statute can and does lead to unfairness. This is particularly so in the many cases where the veteran is not represented by counsel during the processing of the claim at the Veterans Administration and/or is suffering from a mental disability. These circumstances can make it extremely difficult for the veteran to navigate the system and meet the statutory deadline. These situations are not merely hypothetical, as our prior decisions demonstrate. 1 In this case, the veteran suffered from a service-connected mental illness allegedly leading to the late filing. The problems with the rigid rule of the existing statute may suggest that Congress should amend the statute to provide a good cause exception.
. See Barrett v. Nicholson, 466 F.3d 1038 (Fed.Cir.2006) (service-connected mental illness); Jaquay v. Principi, 304 F.3d 1276 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc) (claimant’s non-attorney representative mistakenly mailed request for reconsideration to wrong office, thus resulting in untimely filing); Bailey v. West, 160 F.3d 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc) (no counsel; regional office mistakenly retained appeals documentation, thus resulting in untimely filing).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9841538. Public record. Not legal advice.