Melvin L. Copeland, Jr. v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Incorporated (Board decision, January 8, 2019)

BRB final decision. This unpublished decision is not precedent. The Board denied reconsideration of its untimeliness ruling. Under 20 C.F.R. § 802.406, a Board decision becomes final 60 days after issuance unless a timely petition for judicial review or a timely request for Board reconsideration is filed. A party may request Board reconsideration within 30 days under 20 C.F.R. § 802.407.

Plain-English summary

Melvin Copeland asked the Board to reconsider its decision upholding the dismissal of his untimely longshore modification request. His new motion alleged problems with advice from his prior attorney but did not address why the request was found late. The Board held that the motion supplied no basis to change its timeliness ruling. It denied reconsideration and left the earlier decision in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Modification timing under 33 U.S.C. § 922 and Board reconsideration under 20 C.F.R. § 802.409.
• Outcome: Reconsideration denied; earlier untimeliness ruling stands.
• Key point: The motion did not address the basis for the Board’s prior 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. 18-0188

MELVIN L. COPELAND, JR.
)
)
Claimant-Petitioner
)
)
v. ) DATE ISSUED: 01/08/2019
)
CERES MARINE TERMINALS,
)
INCORPORATED
)
)
Self-Insured
) ORDER on MOTION for
Employer-Respondent
) RECONSIDERATION

Claimant has filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and Order in this case, Copeland v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc., BRB No. 18-0188 (Sept. 13, 2018). 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(5); 20 C.F.R. §802.407(a), (b). Employer has not responded o this motion.

In its decision, the Board affirmed the administrative law judge’s finding that claimant’s motion for modification was not timely filed. See 33 U.S.C. §922. Thus, the Board stated it was unnecessary to address claimant’s contention that the administrative law judge erred in denying the request of Lamarr Brown to serve as claimant’s lay representative.

In his motion for reconsideration, claimant, represented by Mr. Brown, asserts his rights were infringed by allegedly unethical and biased advice of his prior attorney. As claimant’s motion does not address the basis for the Board’s affirmance of the administrative law judge’s determinations that claimant’s motion for modification was untimely filed and employer is entitled to summary decision, claimant fails to state a basis for granting reconsideration. Thus, we decline to address claimant’s contentions and we deny the motion for reconsideration. 20 C.F.R. §802.409. The Board’s decision is affirmed. Accordingly, claimant’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

SO ORDERED.

BETTY JEAN HALL, Chief
Administrative Appeals Judge

RYAN GILLIGAN
Administrative Appeals Judge

JONATHAN ROLFE
Administrative Appeals Judge

2