eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)

What are the main differences in the court rulings between Henderson v. Shinseki (2011) and Shinseki v. Sanders (2009)

Jurisdictional issue: In Henderson v. Shinseki, the Supreme Court held that the 120-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal with the Veterans Court does not have jurisdictional consequences, and Congress did not require the 120-day deadline to be treated as jurisdictional. In contrast, in Shinseki v. Sanders, the Supreme Court held that the 120-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal with the Veterans Court is jurisdictional, and that the Veterans Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an untimely appeal.

Equitable tolling: In Henderson v. Shinseki, the Supreme Court held that equitable tolling principles do not apply to the 120-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal with the Veterans Court. In contrast, in Shinseki v. Sanders, the Supreme Court held that equitable tolling principles may apply to the 120-day deadline, but only in cases where the veteran can demonstrate that the delay in filing the notice of appeal was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond their control.

Standard of review: In Henderson v. Shinseki, the Supreme Court applied a de novo standard of review, holding that the Veterans Court's interpretation of the 120-day deadline was not entitled to deference. In contrast, in Shinseki v. Sanders, the Supreme Court applied a more deferential standard of review, holding that the Veterans Court's interpretation of the 120-day deadline was entitled to deference.

Burden of proof: In Henderson v. Shinseki, the Supreme Court held that the veteran bears the burden of demonstrating that the failure to timely file the notice of appeal was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond their control. In contrast, in Shinseki v. Sanders, the Supreme Court held that the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the veteran's failure to timely file the notice of appeal was not caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond their control.

Impact on veterans' benefits: The ruling in Henderson v. Shinseki had a significant impact on veterans' benefits, as it allowed veterans to appeal decisions denying them benefits even if they missed the 120-day deadline. In contrast, the ruling in Shinseki v. Sanders had a more limited impact on veterans' benefits, as it only applied to cases where the veteran could demonstrate that the delay in filing the notice of appeal was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond their control.

In summary, the main differences between Henderson v. Shinseki and Shinseki v. Sanders are related to the jurisdictional nature of the 120-day deadline, the applicability of equitable tolling, the standard of review, and the burden of proof. The rulings in these cases have had a significant impact on the way veterans' benefits are handled and have provided guidance to the Veterans Court and veterans' advocates on the proper interpretation and application of the law.

eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)