Trent Coal, Inc. v. Day, 83-3461

Citation739 F.2d 116
Decision Date08 June 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-3461,83-3461
PartiesTRENT COAL, INC. and State Workmen's Insurance Fund, Petitioners, v. William F. DAY and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Respondents. . Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6)
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

John W. Jordan, IV, Edward A. McFarland, Grigsby, Gaca & Davies, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pa. for petitioners.

Francis X. Lilly, Deputy Sol. of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate Sol., J. Michael O'Neill, Washington, D.C., for Appellate Litigation.

Christopher J. Heffernan, J. Michael O'Neill, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for the Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

Before WEIS and BECKER, Circuit Judges, and ACKERMAN, District judge. *

OPINION OF THE COURT

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

The Benefits Review Board rejected as untimely an employer's appeal from an ALJ's award of Black Lung benefits. Interpreting a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, the Board determined that the appeal period began to run on the day the ALJ issued his order, rather than when it was filed with the deputy commissioner. Finding the Board's construction of the regulation in conflict with the statute, we reverse and direct reinstatement of the appeal.

The ALJ issued his decision awarding benefits on April 11, 1983. On that same day he sent a copy of his order and decision to the deputy commissioner's office which received the documents on April 13, 1983. On May 12, 1983, the employer filed its appeal from the ALJ's order.

The Board concluded that it had no jurisdiction because the "appeal was not timely filed within thirty days of the date in which the administrative law judge's Decision and Order was issued." On the employer's motion for reconsideration, one of the Board members dissented and would have reinstated the appeal.

At issue in this court is section 422(h) of the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 901 et seq., which incorporates the provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 901 et seq., governing appeals from ALJs. Section 21 of the Longshoremen's Act provides that a compensation order "shall become effective when filed in the office of the deputy commissioner ... and unless proceedings [are taken] for the ... setting aside of such order ... [it] shall become final at the expiration of the thirtieth day thereafter." 33 U.S.C. Sec. 921(a).

With the increasing volume of Black Lung claims, the Secretary found that for administrative purposes it was desirable to file the original record in those cases with the Division of Coal Mine Workers Compensation rather than the deputy commissioner. To that end, a new "housekeeping" regulation was promulgated. It provided that the ALJ was to serve the decision and order on all parties by mail, and

"On the same date, the original record of the claim shall be returned to the [Division of Coal Mine Workers Compensation] in Washington, D.C. and the decision and order shall be considered to be filed in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner. Immediately upon receipt of a decision and order awarding benefits, the deputy commissioner shall compute the amount of benefits due."

20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.478 (1980).

Although the statute unambiguously provides that the appeal period begins to run when the order is filed with the deputy commissioner, the regulation is less precise. It is apparent that the deputy commissioner was to continue to receive the decision and order as before but that the original record was to be sent to Washington. The Board seemingly read the regulation to mean that the decision and order were deemed to be filed with the deputy commissioner "on the same date" the record was returned to Washington.

The Board's interpretation is patently inconsistent not only with the statute but with another regulation as well. That regulation provides:

"A decision and order shall become effective when filed in the office of the deputy commissioner (see Sec. 725.478) and unless proceedings for suspension or setting aside of such order are instituted within 30 days of such filing, the order shall be final at the expiration of the thirtieth day after such filing."

20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.479(a). This regulation tracks the statutory language and clearly grants the aggrieved party thirty days after "filing" with the deputy commissioner to perfect an appeal. 1

The statute contains no definition of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Beach v. Noble Drilling Corporation
    • United States
    • Longshore Complaints Court of Appeals
    • February 7, 1995
    ... ... than August 5, 1994, and that the 30-day period for filing an ... appeal should run from the ... Ben Coal Co. v. Jones , 897 F.2d 900, 13 BLR 2-360 (7th ... See ... Barry v. Sea-Land Services, Inc. , 27 BRBS 260 (1993), ... aff'd , ___ F.3d ____, ... 30 days of this date. See Trent Coal, Inc. v. Day, ... 739 F.2d 116, 6 BLR 2-77 (3d ... ...
  • Patton v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • June 3, 1985
    ...(7th Cir.1985); Townsend v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 743 F.2d 880, 881 (11th Cir.1984); Trent Coal, Inc. v. Day, 739 F.2d 116, 117 (3d Cir.1984). The running of that period is triggered by the filing of the ALJ's decision "as provided in section 919." 33 U.S.C. Se......
  • Castaneda v. I.N.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • May 13, 1994
    ...of the federal courts as delimited by Congress. See, e.g., United States v. Ursillo, 786 F.2d 66, 72 (2d Cir.1986); Trent Coal, Inc. v. Day, 739 F.2d 116, 118 (3d Cir.1984). Consequently, Sec. 244.2 is properly understood as prohibiting only administrative review, creating no conflict with ......
  • Nealon v. California Stevedore & Ballast Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 14, 1993
    ...to perform his or her duties under and in accordance with the specific requirements of the applicable statutes. Cf. Trent Coal, Inc. v. Day, 739 F.2d 116, 117 (3d Cir.1984) (characterizing the Black Lung regulation as a "housekeeping" regulation). While the Black Lung regulation is clearer ......
  • 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