Kalfountzos v. United States of America Railroad Retirement Board , 427 F. App'x 612 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NIKIFOROS P. KALFOUNTZOS, No. 09-72253
Petitioner, R.R.B. No. A-XXX-XX-XXXX
v.
MEMORANDUM *
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of a Decision of the
United States Railroad Retirement Board
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Nikiforos P. Kalfountzos petitions pro se for review of the Railroad
Retirement Board’s (“Board”) decision affirming the hearing officer’s denial of his
application for a disability annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 45 U.S.C. § 231g, which incorporates 45 U.S.C. § 355(f). We
deny the petition for review.
We uphold the Board’s decision because it “‘is supported by substantial
evidence, is not arbitrary and has a reasonable basis in the law.’” Calderon v. U.S.
R.R. Ret. Bd., 780 F.2d 812, 813 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted); see also 45
U.S.C. § 231(a)(1) (defining “employer”); id. § 231(f)(1) (defining “years of
service”); id. § 231a (setting forth required years of service for annuity eligibility).
Kalfountzos’s remaining contentions, including his equal protection
challenge, are unpersuasive. See U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174-179
(1981) (rejecting plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge to Railroad Retirement Act
under the rational basis test).
We do not consider contentions that Kalfountzos did not raise before the
Board. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘[I]f a
petitioner wishes to preserve an issue for appeal, he must first raise it in the proper
administrative forum.’” (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-72253