Bennett v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor

Citation717 F.2d 1167
Decision Date26 September 1983
Docket NumberNo. 81-1676,81-1676
PartiesAvery C. BENNETT, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Harold B. Culley, Jr., West Frankfort, Ill., for petitioner.

J. Michael O'Neill, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before WOOD and ESCHBACH, Circuit Judges, and GORDON, Senior District Judge. *

MYRON L. GORDON, Senior District Judge.

The petitioner seeks review of a decision of the United States Department of Labor Benefits Review Board (BRB) dismissing as untimely his appeal from the decision of a Labor Department Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The latter denied benefits sought by Mr. Bennett under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 901 et seq. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 30 U.S.C. Sec. 932(a) and 33 U.S.C. Sec. 921(c). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the BRB.

I.

The relevant procedural history of this case is not in dispute. Review of the petitioner's claim for federal black lung benefits culminated in a formal hearing before ALJ Stewart A. Levin on December 3, 1979. On March 24, 1980, the ALJ issued his decision and order denying benefits. As required by 20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.478, he served the decision on the petitioner and his counsel on the same date. The ALJ's decision did not contain any notice of the appeal rights specified in 20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.481.

On October 10, 1980, the petitioner's newly retained counsel filed with the BRB a notice of appeal from the ALJ's decision. On February 27, 1981, the BRB issued its order dismissing the petitioner's appeal as having been untimely filed under 20 C.F.R. Sec. 802.205.

II.

In enacting the Black Lung Benefits Act, Congress adopted the hearing and appeal procedures of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). 33 U.S.C. Secs. 919, 921, as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. Sec. 932(a). Section 21(a) of the LHWCA provides:

(a) A compensation order shall become effective when filed in the office of the deputy commissioner as provided in section 919 of this title, and, unless proceedings for the suspension or setting aside of such order are instituted as provided in subdivision (b) of this section, shall become final at the expiration of the thirtieth day thereafter.

The thirty-day limitation on appeals of compensation orders established by this statutory provision is echoed in the regulations applicable to black lung claims issued by the Secretary of Labor. Under 20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.479, an ALJ's decision and order becomes final thirty days after it is filed in the office of the deputy commissioner unless proceedings to suspend or set aside the order are instituted within that time period. According to 20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.478, a decision of an ALJ is "considered to be filed in the office of the deputy commissioner" on the date it is issued and served on the parties. Under these regulations the petitioner had thirty days after he was served with ALJ Levin's decision and order on March 24, 1980, in which to appeal the decision to the BRB. Since the petitioner's notice of appeal was not filed until October 10, 1980, it was clearly untimely.

The same conclusion is compelled by examination of the regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor as the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Benefits Review Board, 20 C.F.R. Part 802. The applicable regulation is 20 C.F.R. Sec. 802.205(a), which provides that a notice of appeal must be filed with the BRB within thirty days from the date the ALJ's decision is filed in the office of the deputy commissioner.

The consequences of failure to file a timely appeal are recited in Sec. 802.205(c):

(c) Failure to file within the period specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section (whichever is applicable) shall foreclose all rights to review by the Board with respect to the case or matter in question. Any untimely appeal will be summarily dismissed by the Board for lack of jurisdiction.

The petitioner acknowledges that he failed to comply with the statutory and regulatory time limits for filing his notice of appeal with the BRB. However, he argues that his failure should be excused because the ALJ did not include a notice of appeal rights in his decision, and the petitioner therefore was not personally made aware of the applicable time limits.

In his brief on appeal to this court, the petitioner argued that inclusion of a notice of appeal rights in the ALJ's decision is mandated by 20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.481. However, the petitioner's counsel abandoned this contention at oral argument since the regulation cited is devoid of any language that explicitly or implicitly imposes such a requirement. Furthermore, 20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.477(b), which prescribes the required contents of an ALJ's ruling, contains no mention of a notice of appeal rights. The latter regulation states:

(b) A decision and order shall contain a statement of the basis of the order, the names of the parties, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an award, rejection or other appropriate paragraph containing the action of the administrative law judge, his or her signature and the date of issuance. A decision and order shall be based upon the record made before the administrative law judge.

Although this regulation does not require the ALJ's decision to include a notice of appeal rights, the petitioner argues that such a notice should be included, based on general principles of fairness. He points out that black lung claimants commonly have little education and cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of the contents of either the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations. He also argues that such claimants often will be proceeding pro se on appeal to the BRB, because attorney's fees are reimbursed only if the appeal is successful. See 20 C.F.R. Sec. 802.203.

We recognize that it may be difficult for an unrepresented black lung claimant to understand his appeal rights. However, the petitioner has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Sebben, In re, s. 86-1295
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 25, 1987
    ...411 (2d Cir.1983); Wellman v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation, 706 F.2d 191 (6th Cir.1983); Bennett v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation, 717 F.2d 1167 (7th Cir.1983). And, four Circuits, including this Circuit, have held that the sixty-day judicial appeal period is jurisd......
  • Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 29, 1987
    ......Labor Policy, Inc., North Springfield, Va., Robert W. ... subsequent denial of unemployment compensation resulted in a deprivation of their right to ... fees against Smith's counsel, it appears to us that he also desired to shift the plaintiffs' ......
  • Reich v. Youghiogheny and Ohio Coal Co., C2-92-793.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • May 13, 1994
    ...§ 1507; Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384-85, 68 S.Ct. 1, 3-4, 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947). See also Bennett v. Director, OWCP, 717 F.2d 1167, 1169 (7th Cir.1983); Diamond Ring Ranch, Inc. v. Morton, 531 F.2d 1397, 1405 (10th Cir.1976). Hence, the plaintiff was provided construct......
  • Vialez v. New York City Housing Authority, 89 Civ. 8356 (DNE) (SEG).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • June 18, 1991
    ...to specific notice of the right to appeal unable to demonstrate a legally sound argument. In Bennett v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 717 F.2d 1167 (7th Cir.1983), for example, a petitioner sought review of a decision of the United States Department of Labor Benefits R......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT