Maverick Qualls v. SSA Terminals, LLC and Homeport Insurance Company (Board decision, February 27, 2026)

BRB final decision. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the administrative law judge's denial of counsel's motion to reconsider an attorney fee order. 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

Counsel for Maverick Qualls sought an attorney fee award under the Longshore Act. The administrative law judge awarded fees and costs but did not address an unopposed request to pay counsel's hourly rate expert. Counsel sought to amend the order 27 days later, within the federal civil rule's 28 day period but after the ten day reconsideration deadline for proceedings before a Labor Department judge. The Board held that the specific agency reconsideration rule controlled and that the judge correctly treated the filing as an untimely reconsideration request. It affirmed the denial and dismissed any appeal of the underlying fee order as untimely.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reconsideration of an administrative law judge's fee order under 29 C.F.R. § 18.93.
• Outcome: Denial of reconsideration affirmed; any appeal of the underlying fee order dismissed as untimely.
• Key point: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) does not extend the specific ten day reconsideration deadline in Longshore Act proceedings.

Full text (BRB public release)

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

BRB No. 24-0261

MAVERICK QUALLS
)
)
Claimant-Petitioner
)
)
v. )
)
NOT-PUBLISHED
SSA TERMINALS, LLC
)
)
and
) DATE ISSUED: 02/27/2026
)
HOMEPORT INSURANCE COMPANY
)
)
Employer/Carrier-
)
Respondents
)
DECISION and ORDER
Appeal of the Order Denying Reconsideration of Christopher Larsen, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.

Philip R. Weltin (Weltin, Streb & Weltin, LLP), Oakland, California, for Claimant.

Alan J. Chang (Sibia, Chang & Bruyneel, LLP), Daly City, California, for Employer and Carrier.

Before: ROLFE, JONES, and ULMER, Administrative Appeals Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Claimant’s counsel Philip R. Weltin (Counsel) appeals the Order Denying Reconsideration (OALJ No. 2021-LHC-01377) of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Christopher Larsen rendered on a claim for an attorney’s fee filed pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §§901-950 (Act). We must affirm the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law if they are rational,

supported by substantial evidence, and in accordance with applicable law. 1 33 U.S.C.
§921(b)(3); O’Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Assocs., Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965).

On February 15, 2024, the ALJ issued an Attorney Fee Order (Fee Order) awarding Counsel a total of $202,541.30, representing a fee award of $177,125.96 plus the full amount of requested costs, $25,415.34. But the award did not include Counsel’s unopposed request for a fee on behalf of his hourly-rate expert, Steven A. Tasher of Wyatt Partners. Although the ALJ acknowledged the Tasher fee request, the Fee Order did not indicate why it was not included in the fee award. Fee Order at 4, 32-33.

Twenty-seven days later, on March 13, 2024, Counsel filed a Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to Amend the Court’s Judgment, requesting the ALJ amend the Fee Order to include the Tasher fee as it was unopposed , and the ALJ did not address it.2 Employer responded on March 15, 2024, that the motion was time-barred under the Office of Administrative Law Judges Rules of Practice and Procedure (OALJ Rules) as an untimely motion for reconsideration. See Emp.’s Resp. to Rule 59(e) Motion.

On March 19, 2024, the ALJ issued an Order Denying Reconsideration (Recon.
Order). He acknowledged the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply in situations not provided for by the Act, the OALJ Rules, or other regulations pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §18.10 but found “no discernable difference” between a motion for reconsideration and a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment. Recon. Order at 1. Because the OALJ Rules require a party to file a motion for reconsideration within ten days of service of the decision, 29 C.F.R. §18.93,3 the ALJ found the Federal Rules did not apply and dismissed Counsel’s motion as untimely. Id. at 1-2.

On April 16, 2024, Counsel appealed to the Board. Notably, Counsel’s Notice of Appeal does not specifically appeal the Fee Order but names only the Order Denying Reconsideration as the subject of his appeal. Counsel argues the ALJ abused his discretion

1 This case arises within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit because Claimant sustained his injury in California. 33 U.S.C. §921(c); see Roberts v. Custom Ship Interiors, 35 BRBS 65, 67 n.2 (2001), aff’d, 300 F.3d 510 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1188 (2003); 20 C.F.R. §702.201(a).
2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) states: “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed

no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” 3 See also 20 C.F.R. §802.206(b)(1), which requires motions for reconsideration of

an ALJ’s decision to be filed within ten days of the date the decision or order was filed with the district director.

2

in omitting the unopposed Tasher fee without explanation and then compounded his error by refusing to amend the Fee Order pursuant to Rule 59(e). Counsel’s Pet. for Review at 4-6. Counsel maintains there is a difference between an ALJ’s “reasoned omission” – which would require a motion for reconsideration to correct – and an “unreasoned omission” – for which Rule 59(e) is the appropriate remedy. Counsel’s Reply Br. at 1-2. As he asserts the omission of the Tasher fee was the latter, Counsel argues the ALJ should have granted his motion to amend pursuant to Rule 59(e). Id. at 2.

In response, Employer argues the ALJ did not err in finding Counsel’s Rule 59(e) motion constituted an untimely motion for reconsideration. Emp.’s Resp. Br. at 8-12. Alternatively, Employer moved to dismiss Counsel’s appeal to the Board as untimely, arguing the time-barred motion for reconsideration failed to toll Section 21(a)’s thirty-day deadline to appeal the original Fee Order. Mot. to Dismiss at 4-8; see 33 U.S.C. §921(a); 20 C.F.R. §§802.205(a), 802.206(a).

The sole issue on appeal is whether the ALJ erred in finding Counsel’s motion to alter or amend the ALJ’s Fee Order – brought pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 59(e) – constituted an untimely motion for reconsideration of the ALJ’s fee order. The rules establish different deadlines: a party has twenty-eight days to file a Rule 59(e) motion under the Federal Rules but only ten days to file a motion for reconsideration under the OALJ rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P 59(e); 20 C.F.R. §802.206(b)(1); 29 C.F.R. §18.93. There is no dispute Counsel filed his Rule 59(e) motion beyond the ten-day deadline for reconsideration but within the twenty-eight-day deadline for a Rule 59(e) motion.

And it is equally apparent the ALJ did not err in finding Counsel’s Rule 59(e) motion is a time-barred motion for reconsideration under settled law. “Rule 59(e) does not apply to proceedings under the Act in view of specific reconsideration provisions” found in the OALJ Rules. Zumwalt v. Nat’l Steel & Shipbuilding Co., 52 BRBS 17, 21 (2018); see 20 C.F.R. §802.206(b)(1); 29 C.F.R. §§18.10(a), 18.93. As use of Rule 59(e) is improper in proceedings under the Act, the ALJ correctly interpreted Counsel’s request as a motion for reconsideration. Because the motion for reconsideration was untimely, the ALJ appropriately denied it.

3

Accordingly, we affirm the ALJ’s Order Denying Reconsideration.4

SO ORDERED.

JONATHAN ROLFE
Administrative Appeals Judge

MELISSA LIN JONES
Administrative Appeals Judge

GLENN E. ULMER
Administrative Appeals Judge

4 We deny Employer’s motion to dismiss as moot. However, to the extent Counsel is also appealing the underlying Fee Order, any such appeal is hereby dismissed, as an untimely motion for reconsideration does not toll Section 21(a)’s appeal deadline. 22 U.S.C. §921(a).