Dorothy Alice Upole, Widow of Russell G. Upole, Petitioner, v. Island Creek Coal Company; Director, Office of Workers'compensation Programs, United States Department Oflabor, Respondents, 976 F.2d 729 (4th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 976 F.2d 729 (4th Cir. 1992) Submitted: April 30, 1992Decided: September 23, 1992

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (88-285-BLA)

Dorothy Alice Upole, Petitioner Pro Se.

Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Michael John Denney, Michelle Seyman Gerdano, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Ben.Rev.Bd.

DISMISSED.

Before WILKINSON, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


OPINION

Dorothy Alice Upole, widow of Russell G. Upole, appeals the decision of the Benefits Review Board ("Board"), affirming an order of the administrative law judge, dismissing her claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1991). Because Mrs. Upole untimely filed her notice of appeal, we are without jurisdiction to review the Board's decision.

The Board issued its final decision and order on January 24, 1991. Mrs. Upole did not seek judicial review until May 20, 1991, well beyond the sixty day limitations period for seeking judicial review. See 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) (1988), as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. § 932(a); 20 C.F.R. § 725.482(a) (1988). The time limitation for filing an appeal is jurisdictional, and may not be waived or enlarged by the Court for excusable neglect. See Adkins v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 889 F.2d 1360, 1361 (4th Cir. 1989).

We dismiss the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction. 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.