Claris I. Fite Rose v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (Board decision, July 26, 2019)

Rose v. Director, OWCP (BRB 17-0421 BLO): second reconsideration request denied

Decision type
Board decision
Docket
17-0421 BLO
Decided
July 26, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Precedential status
Unpublished Board decision, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-16

Apply this to your situation

This order from 2019 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current statutes and regulations the Board applies and Board precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2019
The statutes and regulations the Board applies may have been amended, and later Board or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official BRB release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (dol.gov)

BRB final decision. This unpublished reconsideration order is not precedent. The Benefits Review Board denied Claris Rose's motion to reconsider its March 28, 2019 order. Board finality is governed by 20 C.F.R. § 802.406; this order disposes of the reconsideration request under 20 C.F.R. §§ 802.407 and 802.409.

Plain-English summary

Claris Rose, representing herself, asked the Benefits Review Board to reconsider its March 28, 2019 order, which had denied reconsideration of an earlier decision. The Board stated that no panel member voted to vacate or modify its decision. It denied her new reconsideration motion. This short order does not describe the underlying benefits claim or explain the grounds Rose raised.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: Reconsideration under 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(5) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 802.407 and 802.409.
  • Outcome: Motion for reconsideration denied; March 28 order left in place.
  • Key point: No panel member voted to vacate or modify the Board's earlier decision.

Full text (DOL BRB public release)

U.S. Department of Labor
Benefits Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001

BRB No. 17-0421 BLO

CLARIS I. FITE ROSE
)
)
Claimant-Petitioner
)
)
v. ) DATE ISSUED: 07/26/2019
)
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’
)
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
)
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
)
) ORDER on
Respondent
) RECONSIDERATION

Claimant, without counsel, has filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the Board’s March 28, 2019, Order denying reconsideration in Rose v. Director, OWCP, BRB No. 17-0421 BLO (May 23, 2018) (unpub.). 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(5); 20 C.F.R. §802.407.
No member of the panel has voted to vacate or modify the Board’s decision.1 Therefore,
claimant’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 20 C.F.R. §§801.301(b); 802.409.

By Order of the Board:

Thomas O. Shepherd, Jr.
Clerk of the Appellate Boards

1
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge Judith S. Boggs was substituted on this panel due to the retirement of Chief Administrative Appeals Judge Betty Jean Hall. 20 C.F.R.
§802.407(a).

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current statutes and regulations the Board applies and Board precedent against your facts, with citations.

Try Ezel Pro free for 7 days. Cancel anytime before the trial ends and you pay nothing.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace