Douglas M. Fletcher, Petitioner, v. Sea "b" Mining Company; Director, Office of Workers'compensation Programs, United States Department Oflabor, Respondents, 991 F.2d 789 (4th Cir. 1993)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 991 F.2d 789 (4th Cir. 1993) Submitted: March 29, 1993Decided: April 21, 1993

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (92-1192-BLA)

Douglas M. Fletcher, Petitioner Pro Se.

Timothy Ward Gresham, PENN, STUART, ESKRIDGE & JONES; Cathryn Celeste Helm, Marta Kusic, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, for Respondents.

Ben.Rev.Bd.

DISMISSED.

Before LUTTIG, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


OPINION

Douglas Fletcher appeals from a decision of the Benefits Review Board affirming an administrative law judge's decision to deny his application for black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1991). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable, based on the fact that Fletcher filed a motion for reconsideration with the Board. See 20 C.F.R. § 802.406 (1991); Bridger Coal Co./Pac. Minerals v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 927 F.2d 1150 (10th Cir. 1991); Arch Mineral v. Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 798 F.2d 215 (7th Cir. 1986); see also Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Hileman, 897 F.2d 1277 (4th Cir. 1990) (untimely motion for reconsideration filed with Board tolls time for appeal because Board accepted it and ruled on its merits). The filing of the motion for reconsideration tolls the period for filing an appeal, which will begin to run anew when the Board acts on the motion. See Bridger, 927 F.2d at 1152; Tideland Welding Serv. v. Sawyer, 881 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 904 (1990).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.