WILLIAM F. DONALDSON, PETITIONER,
v.
COASTAL MARINE CONTRACTING CORP. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, RESPONDENTS

11th Cir. | 1997-07-16
No. 96-9295
Before DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and HILL, Senior Circuit Judge.
116 F.3d 1449 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1997) Negative Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
HILL, Senior Circuit Judge:

HILL, Senior Circuit Judge: In this Petition for Review of final action of the Benefits Review Board disposing of Petitioner’s claims under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, two issues are presented: 1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision and order is final and ripe for review by this court, and 2. Whether the ALJ’s order is to be upheld or vacated?

Under the provisions of the Department of Labor Appropriations Act, the Department is prohibited from using appropriated funds after September 12, 1996, to review eases such as this appeal to the Board of Review which had been pending for more than a year as of that date. Those pending for that time and not acted upon are required to be considered affirmed and final on September 12, 1996 for purposes of judicial review.

Thus, the Courts of Appeal are to review awards of ALJ’s without the benefit of the conclusions of the experienced members of the Board. The Congress has the power to amend the substantive law governing review of these cases through an appropriations bill. Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society, 503 U.S. 429, 440-41, 112 S.Ct. 1407, 1414-15, 118 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992) and it has done so in this instance. Petitioner’s suggestion that the ALJ’s order is not ripe for review is not well-taken.

II.

While evidence was conflicting and, in view of the ALJ’s finding that Petitioner lacked credibility, subject to different findings, the ALJ’s decision is adequately supported and due to be upheld. The Petition for Review is DENIED. . An adjudicatory agency within the United States Department of Labor. . 33 U.S.C. § 901 etseq. . Public Law No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-211, 1321-219. .Whether or not the Congress viewed the Benefits Review Board heavily laden with work and Court of Appeals idle and underworked does not appear from the record.

However, the Act does transfer Board work to the judiciary.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Brooker v. Durocher Dock AND Dredge, 133 F.3d 1390 (11th Cir. 1998)
    …110 Slat. 1321, 1321-219 (codified at 33 U.S.C.A. § 921 note (West Supp.1997)). We summarily reject Brooker's contention that the BRB’s failure to review his petition renders his petition unripe. See Donaldson v. Coastal Marine Contracting Corp., 116 F. 3d 1449, 1450 (11th Cir.1997). . We note that this witness worked for the elec-trie company, not Durocher.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw