Pennie v. Benefits Review Board ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 30 2009
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DALE PENNIE,                                    No. 08-70121
    Petitioner,                        BRB No. 07-0386
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD; et al.,
    Respondents,
    MID-COAST MARINE; SAIF
    CORPORATION,
    Real Parties in Interest.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Benefits Review Board
    Submitted December 15, 2009 **
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    GT/Research
    Before:       GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Dale Pennie petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s order
    issued on October 19, 2007. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s
    order denying Pennie’s request to modify an earlier award of compensation under
    the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 
    33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950
    .
    We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
    Pennie’s petition for review was received by this court more than sixty days
    after the Board’s order issued. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the
    petition. See 33 U.S.C. 921(c); Felt v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,
    
    11 F.3d 951
    , 952-53 (9th Cir. 1993) (order) (explaining that section 921(c)’s
    sixty-day filing period is a “jurisdictional requirement,” and equitable
    considerations are unavailing); see also Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Dir., Office of
    Workers’ Comp. Programs, 
    29 F.3d 513
    , 516 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The policy
    requiring that appeals be timely taken is so strong that ministerial failures by a
    clerk cannot be allowed to overcome it.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
    GT/Research                                2                                     08-70121
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-70121

Judges: Goodwin, Wallace, Fisher

Filed Date: 12/30/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024