Youghiogheny and Ohio Coal Co. v. Benefits Review Bd.

Citation745 F.2d 380
Decision Date05 October 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-3488,83-3488
PartiesThe YOUGHIOGHENY AND OHIO COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, United States Department of Labor; Arthur W. Sullivan, Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

Gerald P. Duff, Kinder, Kinder & Hanlon, John G. Paleudis (argued), St. Clairsville, Ohio, for petitioner.

Paul A. Pachuta (argued), Reynoldsburg, Ohio, J. Michael O'Neil, Troy B. Smith (LC) (argued), U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for respondent Benefits Review Bd.

Before ENGEL and MERRITT, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The Youghiogheny and Ohio Coal Company (the Company) petitions for review of a decision of the United States Department of Labor Benefits Review Board (the Board) in which the Board held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision of a Department of Labor hearing officer.

This action began when Arthur Sullivan filed a claim for benefits with the Department of Labor pursuant to the Black Lung Benefits Act. 30 U.S.C. Secs. 901-45 (1982). The Department of Labor determined that Sullivan was eligible for benefits and that the Company was potentially liable for the payment of those benefits.

The Company requested and obtained a hearing concerning the award of benefits. The hearing officer decided in favor of Sullivan. The Company appealed this decision to the Benefits Review Board which remanded the case to the hearing officer for further proceedings. On July 11, 1978, the hearing officer reaffirmed his previous decision. The same day, the Company filed a motion with the hearing officer requesting another hearing. On July 27, 1978, the hearing officer denied this motion.

The Company did not receive notice of the July 27 decision until June 9, 1982. On June 17, 1982, the Company appealed the hearing officer's decision of July 27, 1978. The Benefits Review Board declined to review the decision because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The Board held that the improper mailing of a decision or order to a party does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. The Company petitions this court to reverse the determination of the Benefits Review Board.

When the hearing officer entered the order denying the Company's motion for an additional hearing, it became his duty under 33 U.S.C. Sec. 919(e) to file the decision in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Labor. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner was then responsible for sending a copy of the decision to the Company. 33 U.S.C. Sec. 919(e) (1982); 20 C.F.R. 725.484 (1978). 1 Notice of the hearing officer's decision was not sent until June, 1982. In declining to review the hearing officer's decision, the Board took the position that the improper mailing of a decision or order to the parties does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. See Sauls v. Armco Steel Corporation, 5 Black Lung Rptr. 1-712 (Benefits Review Board 1983). However, in its brief on appeal the Board has now acknowledged that according to 33 U.S.C. 919(e) and 20 C.F.R. 725.484, "the Hearing Officer's July 27, 1978 decision denying the employer's request for further hearing in this case did not become effective, and the thirty-day appeal time did not begin to run until June 9, 1982, when [the decision] was served on the parties." In Bennett v. Director, 717 F.2d 1167, 1168-69 (7th Cir.1983), the Seventh Circuit agreed with this interpretation:

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. (emphasis added)

We agree that the Board's interpretation of the statute and regulations is correct.

Notwithstanding this change of position, the Board persists in its refusal to allow the Company to appeal the hearing officer's decision here, because of (1) the employer's failure to take any action during the four-year period between July, 1978 and June, 1982 to obtain the hearing officer's decision, and (2) the substantial prejudice to the interests of the miner that would allegedly result were the Review Board reversed. In the opinion of the court, the Board may not ignore the statute and regulations for these reasons. In addition, the Board's argument fails because we find neither prejudice to the miner nor unreasonable delay in this case.

The Board contended that the miner would be prejudiced because, should the miner ultimately...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Beach v. Noble Drilling Corporation
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Longshore Complaints
    • February 7, 1995
    ...... Ben Coal Co. v. Jones , 897 F.2d 900, 13 BLR 2-360 (7th. Cir. ... benefits). Rather, employer's counsel is. alleging he did ... 2-183. Accord Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Benefits Review Board , 745 F.2d ......
  • Patton v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 3, 1985
    ...notice of the ALJ's decision, and is therefore timely. 1 See 20 C.F.R. Secs. 725.478, 725.364; Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Benefits Review Board, 745 F.2d 380, 382 (6th Cir.1984). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the Board's determination, and remand for consideration of Mr. Patt......
  • Big Horn Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • May 24, 1995
    ...requirement is met."); Old Ben, 897 F.2d at 903; Looney, 892 F.2d at 369; Patton, 763 F.2d at 557; Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal v. Benefits Review Board, 745 F.2d 380, 382-83 (6th Cir.1984). The government urges us to adopt a rule that the 30-day period commences once a party receives actual no......
  • Nealon v. California Stevedore & Ballast Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 14, 1993
    ...892 F.2d 366, 369 (4th Cir.1989); Patton v. Director, OWCP, 763 F.2d 553, 557 (3d Cir.1985); Youghiogheny and Ohio Coal Co. v. Benefits Review Board, 745 F.2d 380, 382 (6th Cir.1984). These are Black Lung cases, but, as we have already suggested, we find no basis for construing the identica......
  • 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