or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or in violation of a statutory right; or (D) without observance of procedure required by law.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). B. ANALYSIS Equitable tolling is generally available in two types of situations: (1) “where the claimant has actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective pleading during the statutory period,” or (2) “where the complainant has been induced or tricked by his adversary’s misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass.” Jaquay v. Principi, 304 F.3d 1276, 1282-83 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc) (quoting Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 45 98) (en bane) (<HOLDING>). In Jaquay, a veteran executed a motion for
holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling holding that equitable estoppel and equitable tolling cannot apply to extend the 120day noa filing period set forth in 38 usc  7266a holding that in light of irwin previous statements that equitable tolling is unavailable against 38 usc  7266 are overruled holding that issue of whether the 120day judicialappeal period prescribed by 38 usc  7266a for seeking judicial review of a board decision is subject to equitable tolling is a legal question holding that irwin overruled all prior ninth circuit cases that denied equitable tolling under statutes and regulations relating to federal employee discrimination suits including one which had denied tolling under  7703b2