Page:Arellano v. McDonough.pdf/8

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)
5

Opinion of the Court

the one provided by the default rule. It would be inconsistent with this comprehensive scheme for an adjudicator to extend effective dates still further through the doctrine of equitable tolling.[1]

A

Start with the text. Section 5110(b)(1) operates as a limited exception to §5110(a)(1)’s default rule, which states that “the effective date of an award … shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor.” The default applies “[u]nless specifically provided otherwise in this chapter”—a clause indicating that Congress enumerated an exhaustive list of exceptions, with each confined to its specific terms. §5110(a)(1). According to the terms of the exception in §5110(b)(1), “[t]he effective date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran shall be the day following the date of the veteran’s discharge or release if application therefor is received within one year from such date of discharge or release.” Equitably tolling this provision would depart from the terms that Congress “specifically provided.” §5110(a)(1).

The structure of §5110 reinforces Congress’s choice to set effective dates solely as prescribed in the text. The statute sets out detailed instructions that explain when various types of benefits qualify for an effective date earlier than the default. There are 16 such exceptions—and equitable


  1. Equitable tolling, a judicial doctrine, is typically applied by courts. See Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U. S. 145, 158–159 (2013). In this case, Arellano posits that the VA would apply the doctrine in the first instance. Reply Brief 18–19; Tr. of Oral Arg. 16–17. The Secretary counters that the doctrine is not presumptively available to agencies because they possess no equitable power unless Congress grants it to them—which, he says, Congress has not done here. Brief for Respondent 32–35. We need not settle this dispute. Our conclusion that the presumption is rebutted means that no adjudicator, whether an agency or a court, may equitably toll the effective date.