20 C.F.R. § 802.207

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: Forrest G. Aubrey v. Dir., Off. of Worker's Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 916 F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Forrest G. Aubrey v. Dir., Off. of Worker's Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 916 F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 802.207 (a)(2) (notice of appeal timely submitted to other government agency shall be considered filed with BRB if in interest of justice).”

Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Briskie, 161 F. App'x 178 (2d Cir. 2006). “1 The Board issued its decision on August 25, 2004 (one day before the one-year anniversary of the Board’s receipt of Briskie’s notice of appeal), rather than by August 18, 2004 (the one-year anniversary of the effective “date of filing” provided for under 20 C.F.R. § 802.207…”

Ed Daugherty v. Dir., Off. of Workers Comp. Prog., United States Dep't of Labor, 897 F.2d 740 (4th Cir. 1990). “Under 20 C.F.R. § 802.207 , the date of mailing the notice of appeal is considered to be the date of filing.”

E.P. Paup Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers Comp. Programs, 999 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1993). “-206(b) (1984) (providing that, if fixing the date of delivery as the date of filing would result in a loss of appeal rights, it will be considered to have been filed as of the date of the mailing and that a certificate of service may be used to establish the mailing date) (now…”

The Dutra Grp., Inc. v. Kelly Zaradnik (9th Cir. 2023). “208 (b), even where 4 the notice is filed with the wrong entity, 20 C.F.R. § 802.207 (a)(2). But although the joint stipulation discussed Dutra’s intent to proceed to the Ninth Circuit, it said nothing about any intent to appeal to the Board.”

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Davis, 205 F. App'x 157 (4th Cir. 2006). “See 20 C.F.R. § 802.207 (b) (2006). We find no error in this ruling and accordingly deny Davis’ cross-petition.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.