Hutchison vs. Petroleum Helicopter, (5th Cir. 2002)
Linked as:
Text
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .
R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60505 Summary Calendar MARY SUE HUTCHISON, Widow of RAY HUTCHISON, Petitioner, versus PETROLEUM HELICOPTERS, INC.; AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERÂ’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board (00-792) February 28, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Petitioner Mary Sue Hutchison peti tions this court, seeking review of the Benefits Review Board’s (the “BRB”) affirmance of an unfavorable decision of an Ad ministative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The decision in question was issued by the ALJ following the BRB’s remand of an earlier decision and dismisses the Petitioner’s claim for additiona l benefits. This time, the BRB interpreted the Petitioner’s appeal as taking issue with the ALJ’s ruling that her claim is time barred. The BRB agreed with the ALJ’s determination that the Petitioner’s claim was not timely filed and thus was time barred.
The BRB determined that the only basis advanced by the Petitioner for the timeliness of her filing is a 1981 letter from her lawyer to the lawyer for her deceased husbandÂ’s employer. Noting that this letter was never filed with the District Director, the BRB reiterated its consistent requirement that, to constitute a claim for purposes of tolling the statute of limitation, it must be filed with the District Director. In addition, the BRB stated that the letterÂ’s mention of the possibility of PetitionerÂ’s filing a claim if in the future she should become eligible does not constitute the assertion of a claim which, according to the BRB, must assert an immediate right to compensation. We have reviewed the arguments of counsel and the facts and legal authorities referenced in their appellate briefs, and we have carefully considered the aforesaid decision and order of the BRB. As a result, we are convinced that the BRBÂ’s affirmance of the ALJÂ’s denial of PetitionerÂ’s claims as time barred is correct for the reasons lucidly explained in the BRBÂ’s opinion. We therefore dismiss the instant petition for review for the reasons expressed by the BRB. PETITION DISMISSED.
Sponsored links
