Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN
Web Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Unpublished Dispositionervin Stapleton, Petitioner, v. Eastern Coal Corporation, et al., Respondents
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 815 F.2d 80
Feb. 25, 1987
Before MERRITT, WELLFORD and MILBURN, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Respondent corporation has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction this petition to review the final order of the Benefits Review Board of the Department of Labor, which affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge denying petitioner Blaack Lung benefits pursuant to Title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 901 et seq.
Our review of the record indicates that, as pointed out in the motion to dismiss, the petition for review was filed with the court on September 22, 1986, three days after expiration of the sixty day period for the filing of such petitions; 20 C.F.R. 802.410(a). The requirement that the petition be timely filed is jurisdictional and cannot be waived; Wellman v.-Director OWCP, 706 F.2d 191 (6th Cir.1983); Hardesty v. Benefits Review Board, 783 F.2d 138 (8th Cir.1986). We are unpersuaded by the argument of the petitioner in opposition to the motion to dismiss that by having mailed his petition for review on the sixtieth day following issuance of the decision of the Board he has substantially complied with the requirement of timely filing; cf. Rich v. Director, OWCP, 798 F.2d 432 (11th Cir.1986).
For the foregoing reasons the motion of the respondent is found to be well taken, and it is therefore
ORDERED that the petition for review is hereby dismissed for Want of jurisdiction.