Ryan Voltzke v. Canadian National Railway (Board decision, May 22, 2020)

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

Decision type
Board decision
Docket
20-0084
Decided
May 22, 2020
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Unpublished Board decision, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-14

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 This unpublished order is not precedent. The Board denied en banc reconsideration because a majority of its permanent members did not vote to vacate or modify the earlier decision. A 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

Canadian National Railway and its carrier asked the Benefits Review Board to reconsider en banc an earlier decision in Ryan Voltzke's Longshore Act case. No responses to the motion were received. A majority of the Board's permanent members did not vote to vacate or change the decision, so the Board denied the request. The short order does not state the earlier decision's outcome.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: En banc reconsideration under 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(5) and 20 C.F.R. § 802.407.
  • Outcome: Employer and carrier's en banc reconsideration request denied.
  • Key point: The request failed to obtain a majority vote among the Board's permanent members.

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: 05/22/2020
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