due to the general equitable tolling doctrine. This doctrine allows courts to mitigate the statute of limitations in the proper circumstances. Bailey v. Glover, 88 U.S. 342, 347-48, 22 L.Ed. 636 (1874). The general equitable tolling doctrine was applied in Tyger Construction Co. v. United States, 28 Fed.Cl. 35 (1993), which dealt with whether the statute of limitations begins upon submission of alleged fraudulent claims. As the court noted, “fraudulent concealment provides a major justification for [suspending] a statute of limitations.” Tyger Constr. Co., 28 Fed.Cl. at 51. The court also stated that “[fjraud allegations ... differ in kind from other potentially time-barred allegations.” Id. at 52; see Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 397, 66 S.Ct. 582, 585, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) (<HOLDING>). Thus, this court could choose to waive the
holding that the general equitable tolling doctrine is read into every statute of limitations recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims holding that the doctrine of equitable tolling can fairly be read to encompass cases where a plaintiff has been unable to timely file because of disability holding that application of equitable tolling doctrine was appropriate as to statute of limitations in abatement and refund proceedings under cireumstances in that case