VAILATI V. DEPT. OF VETERANS AFFAIRS , No. 12-7154 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-7154 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 11/21/2012 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. Wntteb ~tates {!Court of ~peaIs for tbe jfeberaI {!ctrcutt MARILYN F. VAILATI, Claimant-Appellant, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee. 2012-7154 Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in case no. 08-2454, Judge Lawrence B. Hagel. ON MOTION Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and SCHALL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to dismiss this appeal as untimely. Case: 12-7154 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 11/21/2012 2 MARILYN VAlLATI v. SHINSEKI On April 25, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) entered judgment in Marilyn F. Vailati's case. According to the Veterans Court's docket, the court received Vailati's notice of appeal on July 10, 2012, 76 days after the date of judgment. To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed with the Veterans Court within 60 days of the entry of judgment. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); 28 U.s.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(I). The statutory deadline for taking an appeal to this court is jurisdictional, mandatory, and cannot be waived. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). ); see also Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197, 1204-05 (2011) (the language of Section 7292(a) "clearly signals an intent" to impose the same jurisdictional restrictions on an appeal from the Veterans Court to the Federal Circuit as imposed on appeals from a district court to a court of appeals). Because Vailati's appeal as to the underlying judgment was filed outside of the statutory deadline for taking an appeal to this court, we must dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. (2) The appeal is dismissed. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s26 Issued As A Mandate: NOV 2 1 2012
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
