This per curiam order addressed appellant Steven A. Schreiner’s request for three-judge panel review after a single-judge dismissal of his appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to an untimely Notice of Appeal. The appellant argued that he had not been instructed by the regional office on how to appeal. The Court considered the then-recent Supreme Court decision in Irwin v. Veterans Administration, which recognized equitable tolling against the government but also stated that ordinary excusable neglect is insufficient. Applying that framework, the Court found no factual basis for equitable tolling and denied the motion for review. The case matters because it reinforces the strict treatment of appellate filing deadlines absent a supported equitable-tolling showing.

Equitable tolling is unavailable on facts showing only excusable neglect, and an untimely Notice of Appeal remains jurisdictionally fatal absent a supported tolling basis.

Untimely VA appeals require more than an explanation for delay; advocates must develop facts supporting equitable tolling if they want to preserve appellate jurisdiction.

The decision is an early Veterans Court application of Irwin to VA appellate deadlines. It signals that the Court will not reopen a jurisdictional dismissal without concrete allegations supporting tolling, making deadline preservation a critical practice point.

Relying on late-filing excuses without developing a legally sufficient equitable-tolling record.

A veteran files a Notice of Appeal after the deadline and explains only that VA never explained the appeal process. Under Schreiner, that explanation alone would not justify equitable tolling.

Use to oppose arguments that ordinary misunderstanding, lack of instruction, or neglect should excuse an untimely appeal; distinguish cases with affirmative misconduct or other tolling facts.

Irwin v. Veterans Administration, Elsevier v. Derwinski