James W. Barker v. Bath Iron Works Corporation (Board decision, March 19, 1997)

BRB interlocutory order. The Benefits Review Board denied James Barker's request to keep his consolidated appeals on its docket for an additional 60 days. The appeals remained pending, and the Board requested the formal record. A final Board decision ordinarily becomes final 60 days after issuance absent timely judicial review or reconsideration under 20 C.F.R. § 802.406; a party may request Board reconsideration within 30 days under § 802.407.

Plain-English summary

James Barker asked the Board to keep two consolidated appeals on its docket for another 60 days. The Board said an earlier appropriations law allowed that election, but the fiscal 1997 law did not retain the extension. It denied the motion and explained that the one-year period for consolidated appeals began with the later appeal. The Board also requested the case record from the district director. This order does not resolve either appeal or decide Barker's benefit and attorney fee issues.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: The Board discussed the extension provision in Public Law No. 104-134 and its absence from the fiscal 1997 appropriations law.
• Outcome: Request for an additional 60 days on the Board's docket denied; appeals remained pending.
• Key point: The Board measured the one-year period for consolidated appeals from the later appeal's filing date.

Full text (DOL BRB public release)

BRB Nos. 96-0443 and 96-0443S

JAMES W. BARKER
)
)
Claimant-Petitioner
)
)
v. )
)
BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION ) DATE ISSUED: )
Self-Insured
)
Employer-Respondent
) ORDER

By motion dated October 23, 1996, claimant requested that the Board maintain these appeals on its docket for an additional 60 days pursuant to the provisions of Public Law No. 104-134. Claimant's motion is denied. Public Law No. 104-134 contained a provision that the petitioner could elect to maintain his appeal on the Board's docket for 60 days after the appeal had been pending for one year. The appropriations bill enacted for Fiscal Year 1997, however, while retaining the provision that the Board must administratively affirm any appeal pending before it for more than one year, does not contain the 60-day extension language. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 863, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996). We note that claimant's appeal of the administrative law judge's Supplemental Order Denying Attorney's Fee was filed on March 15, 1996, BRB No. 96-0443S, and that this appeal was consolidated with claimant's appeal in BRB No. 96-0443 filed on December 4, 1995. In consolidated cases, the Board considers the one-year period referenced in the aforementioned laws to commence on the date of the later appeal.

We note that the district director has not yet forwarded the formal record to the Board. The district director is requested to forward the formal record to the Board upon receipt of this order.

BETTY JEAN HALL, Chief
Administrative Appeals Judge

ROY P. SMITH
Administrative Appeals Judge

JAMES F. BROWN
Administrative Appeals Judge