Anania: Mailbox Rule Helps Veteran

Anania v. McDonough, Opinion Number 2020-1086, was decided June 10, 2021 by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and involves the intersection of statements by a veteran’s counsel and the mailbox rule.

This case involved whether a Form 9 was filed to continue an appeal.  The Form 9 must be filed within 60 days of the VA issuing a SOC.  The Veterans Court had “relied on a bright-line rule holding “a party’s own self-serving testimony” per se insufficient to establish the presumption of receipt under the common law mailbox rule.” Id. at *2.  However, the Federal Circuit determined “a party’s affidavit may provide credible evidence to satisfy the mailbox rule, and because the Government does not challenge the credibility of the party’s affidavit in this case, we reverse.” Id. at *2.

The Court explained:

“Under the common law mailbox rule, ‘if a letter properly directed is proved to have been either put into the post office or delivered to the postman, it is presumed, from the known course of business in the post office department, that it reached its destination at the regular time, and was received by the person to whom it was addressed.’” Rios v. Nicholson (Rios I), 490 F.3d 928, 930–31 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185, 193 (1884)). This presumption “is not a conclusive presumption of law, but a mere inference of fact, founded on the probability that the officers of the government will do their duty and the usual course of business.” Rosenthal, 111 U.S. at 193 (quoting Huntley v. Whittier, 105 Mass. 391, 392 (1870)). If evidence is presented that the letters were never received, the evidence “must be weighed with all the other circumstances of the case, by the [trier of fact] in determining the question whether the letters were actually received or not.”

Id. at *5.

The Federal Circuit then:

“Reject[ed] the Veterans Court’s rule that self-serving affidavits are per se insufficient to establish the presumption under the mailbox rule.  Indeed, it seems particularly inappropriate to apply an artificially rigid approach to the assessment of evidence on the factual question of mailing in the area of veterans’ benefits law given the absence of a statute commanding such a rule and the pro-claimant, nonadversarial nature of the statutory scheme created by Congress.”

Id. at *12.  The Court then stated:  “We note that the Government never challenged the credibility of the substance of Mr. Carpenter’s statement. Namely, the Government does not assert that the appeal Mr. Carpenter mailed was not properly addressed, stamped, and mailed in adequate time to reach its destination.”  Id. at *14.

This is an interesting case that uses the mailbox rule (usually applied to help the VA) to help a veteran.

Decision by Judge Stoll and joined in by Judges Dyk and Taranto.

To know more about whether Thomas Andrews can help you, please visit my website.