(BVA or Board) that determined that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) service connection for a low back disability. That same day, the appellant filed a motion for the Court’s consideration of the appeal that had been filed more than 120 days after the October 1996 BVA decision. On September 12, 1997, the Court, by single-judge order, dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction; the Court cited as controlling authority two decisions of this Court: Pittman v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 60, 65 (1996) (BVA notice of appellate rights satisfies 38 U.S.C. § 5104(a) requirements), rev’d on other grounds, 124 F.3d 227 (1997), and Dudley v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 602, 603 (1992) (en banc order) (<HOLDING>). Chastain v. Gober, No. 97-1161, 1997 WL
recognizing difference between tolling and equitable estoppel holding that noa that was received after 120day noa period but that was postmarked within that period did not toll noa period 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 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