Ricardo Corrales v. Interact PMTI, Incorporated and Seabright Insurance Company (Board decision, January 31, 2018)

BRB interlocutory order. This unpublished decision is not precedent. Carrier reconsideration motion denied; compensation case remains pending. A final Board decision ordinarily becomes final 60 days after issuance unless a timely petition for judicial review or Board reconsideration is filed under 20 C.F.R. § 802.406. A party may request Board reconsideration within 30 days under 20 C.F.R. § 802.407.

Plain-English summary

Carrier ALMA asked the Board to reconsider its dismissal of an interlocutory appeal in Ricardo Corrales's compensation case. The Board found no error in its earlier dismissal and denied reconsideration. The judge's hearing was still pending, where ALMA could present its defenses. Issues from the interlocutory order could be raised after a final compensation order.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(5); 20 C.F.R. §§ 802.407, 802.409.
• Outcome: Carrier reconsideration motion denied; compensation case remains pending.
• Key point: The carrier may present defenses at the scheduled hearing and appeal after a final order.

Full text (DOL BRB public release)

U.S. Department of Labor
Benefits Review Board
P.O. Box 37601
Washington, DC 20013-7601

BRB No. 18-0018
Case Nos. 2016-LHC-00880, 2017-LHC-00526 OWCP Nos. 13-105262, 18-305410

RICARDO CORRALES
)
)
Claimant
)
)
v. )
)
INTERACT PMTI, INCORPORATED
)
)
and
)
)
SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY
) DATE ISSUED: Jan. 31, 2018
)
Employer/Carrier-
)
Respondent
)
)
AMERICAN LONGSHORE MUTUAL
)
ASSOCIATION, LIMITED
)
) ORDER on MOTION for
Carrier-Petitioner
) RECONSIDERATION

American Longshore Mutual Association, Limited (ALMA) has filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the Board’s Order in this case, in which ALMA’s interlocutory appeal was dismissed. Corrales v. Interact PMTI, Inc., BRB No. 18-0018 (Nov. 6, 2017); 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(5); 20 C.F.R. §802.407. Seabright Insurance Company responds, urging the Board to deny ALMA’s motion. ALMA filed a reply brief. Because ALMA has not established any error in the Board’s decision, we deny its 1 motion for reconsideration.

1
We reject ALMA’s assertion that the Board’s dismissal of its appeal denies it due process. The administrative law judge has rescheduled the formal hearing in this case for June 12, 2018. At that time, ALMA will have the opportunity to present its defenses under the Act. See generally Kreschollek v. Southern Stevedoring Co., 223 F.3d 202, 34
BRBS 48(CRT) (3d Cir. 2000).
The Board may address issues arising from the
administrative law judge’s interlocutory order if ALMA elects to file an appeal after the administrative law judge issues a final compensation order. 33 U.S.C. §919(e); see generally J.T. [Tracy] v. Global Int’l Offshore, Ltd., 43 BRBS 92 (2009), aff’d sub nom. Keller Foundation/Case Foundation v. Tracy, 696 F.3d 835, 46 BRBS 69(CRT) (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 2825 (2013).

2
Accordingly, ALMA’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 20 C.F.R. §802.409.

SO ORDERED.

_______
BETTY JEAN HALL, Chief
Administrative Appeals Judge

_______
RYAN GILLIGAN
Administrative Appeals Judge

_______
JONATHAN ROLFE
Administrative Appeals Judge