Ryan Voltzke v. Canadian National Railway (Board decision, June 19, 2020)

Voltzke v. Canadian National Railway (BRB 20-0084): en banc reconsideration denied

Decision type
Board decision
Docket
20-0084
Decided
June 19, 2020
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Unpublished Board decision, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-22

Apply this to your situation

This order from 2020 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 2020
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 This unpublished reconsideration order is not precedent.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 the employer and carrier's motion for en banc reconsideration of its earlier decision. Board finality is governed by 20 C.F.R. § 802.406; this order disposes of reconsideration under §§ 802.407 and 802.409.

Plain-English summary

Canadian National Railway and its carrier asked the Benefits Review Board to reconsider its May 22, 2020 decision in Ryan Voltzke's case en banc. No party responded to the motion. A majority of the Board's permanent members did not vote to vacate or change the decision. The Board denied the motion, leaving the earlier decision in place. This short order gives no further explanation of the underlying dispute.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: En banc reconsideration under 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(5) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 801.301(c), 802.407, and 802.409.
  • Outcome: Employer and carrier's motion for en banc reconsideration denied.
  • Key point: The earlier Board decision remained in place because the required majority did not vote to vacate or modify it.

Full text (DOL BRB public release)

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

BRB No. 20-0084

RYAN VOLTZKE
)
)
Claimant-Petitioner
)
)
v. )
)
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
)
)
and
)
)
SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY
) DATE ISSUED: 06/19/2020
ASSOCIATION
)
)
Employer/Carrier-
)
Respondents
)
)
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’
)
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
)
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
) ORDER on MOTION for
) RECONSIDERATION
Respondent
) EN BANC

Employer/Carrier has filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the Benefits Review Board’s Decision and Order in the captioned case, Voltzke v. Canadian Nat’l Ry., BRB No. 20- 0084 (May 22, 2020) (unpub.), suggesting the appropriateness of en banc review. 33 U.S.C.
§921(b)(5); 20 C.F.R. §802.407(a), (b). No responses were received. As a majority of the
permanent members of the Board has not voted to vacate or modify the Board’s decision,
Employer’s motion for reconsideration en banc is denied. 20 C.F.R. §§801.301(c), 802.407(d),
802.409.

By Order of the Board:

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

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