RAYFORD v. MCDONALD , No. 14-7083 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-7083 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2014 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SHERMAN RAYFORD, Claimant-Appellant, v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee. ______________________ 2014-7083 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 13-3047, Judge Mary J. Schoelen. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. REYNA, Circuit Judge. ORDER The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to waive the requirements of Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and to remand this appeal for further proceedings. Case: 14-7083 Document: 27 2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/05/2014 RAYFORD v. MCDONALD On May 21, 2013, the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) denied Sherman Rayford’s claim for serviceconnected benefits. Mr. Rayford, however, asserts that the Board’s decision was mailed to an incorrect address and that he did not receive it until August 2013. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) received Mr. Rayford’s notice of appeal on October 22, 2013, and on April 1, 2014, the Veterans Court dismissed his appeal as untimely. In the interest of judicial economy, the court grants the Secretary’s motion to remand for the Veterans Court to consider, in the first instance, whether the deadline for filing the notice of appeal in this case should be equitably tolled in light of this court’s decision in Checo v. Shinseki, 748 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court s30 ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 5, 2014

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.