Daniel Kupke v. Owcp (9th Cir. 2020). · Go Syfert
Search
Daniel Kupke v. Owcp (9th Cir. 2020). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel Kupke
v.
Owcp
18-72575.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 21, 2020.
Unpublished  |  Agency

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL R. KUPKE, to the Use of Barnett, No. 18-72575 Lerner, Karsen & Frankel, P.A., BRB No. 17-0359 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM*

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; et al., Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board

Argued and Submitted February 3, 2020 Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

Barnett, Lerner, Karsen & Frankel, P.A. (Barnett) petitions for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board upholding an administrative law judge’s

(ALJ) attorneys’ fees determination. We have jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C.

§ 921(c), and we deny the petition.

[*2]

failed to carry its burden of showing that any error by the ALJ “affected [its] substantial rights, . . . not merely [its] procedural rights.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

PETITION DENIED.

[*3]
1 We assume without deciding that Barnett preserved this issue before the Benefits Review Board. We also assume without deciding that the ALJ’s consideration of fee awards from the Southern District of Florida constituted taking official notice, thereby triggering the procedural requirements in 29 C.F.R. § 18.201.
2 Even if we were to conclude that the ALJ erred by failing to give Barnett notice of her intent to rely on fee awards from the Southern District of Florida, Barnett has not shown that such error was prejudicial.1 Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2012). Barnett’s briefs on appeal failed to explain why the district court decisions relied on by the ALJ were inappropriate indicators of the prevailing rates in South Florida. Nor did Barnett offer any explanation at oral argument. In a post-argument briefing order, we asked Barnett to include in its supplemental brief “any arguments for why the specific cases relied upon by the ALJ did not reflect the market rate for South Florida.” Barnett instead submitted a supplemental brief bereft of any arguments on this point. Barnett has therefore