Torres v. Derwinski — written notice to VA can satisfy filing when Court address unavailable

The Secretary moved to dismiss Mr. Torres’ appeal as untimely because his notice of appeal was not received by the Court within the statutory 120-day period. The Court denied the motion, explaining that this case arose during the Court’s formative period, before the Court had a published mailing address and before its interim procedural rules were in effect. Mr. Torres had timely informed VA that he strongly disagreed with the Board decision and later requested judicial review, asking VA to forward the notice to the Court.

The Court held that the statute required timely filing with the Court, but that literal compliance could not fairly be demanded when the Court’s address was unavailable and there was no meaningful way for a claimant to file directly. Relying on Houston v. Lack and the practical realities of the Court’s start-up period, the Court concluded that a written expression of dissatisfaction and intent to seek judicial review delivered to VA for forwarding was sufficient under these circumstances. The Court therefore deemed the notice timely filed. The opinion also clarified that, once the Court’s rules and address became available, the notice of appeal must be received by the Clerk within 120 days.

A timely written expression of disagreement and desire for judicial review delivered to VA can satisfy the notice-of-appeal requirement when literal filing with the Court is impossible because the Court’s address is unavailable.

Torres is an early jurisdictional decision recognizing a limited, circumstance-specific substitute for formal filing. Advocates should note its narrow relevance: it addressed the Court’s start-up period and does not relax the ordinary rule that a notice of appeal must be filed with the Court within 120 days.

The case preserves appellate rights in a unique transitional period and illustrates the Court’s willingness to avoid forfeiture when statutory compliance was impossible through no fault of the veteran. It is useful as authority for equitable-looking jurisdiction analysis, but its holding is narrow and tied to the Court’s early operations.

A veteran timely writes to a regional office stating disagreement with the Board decision and asking that the notice be forwarded to the Court, but the Court’s address is not yet available. Under Torres, that communication may preserve appellate jurisdiction.

Use Torres only for the narrow proposition that a timely, pro se notice delivered to VA can be effective when the Court’s address was unavailable and direct filing was impossible. It should not be cited to excuse missed filing deadlines in ordinary modern practice.

Houston v. Lack