20 C.F.R. § 802.208

Contents of notice of appeal

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

(a) A notice of appeal shall contain the following information:

(1) The full name and address of the pettioner;

(2) The full name of the injured, disabled, or deceased employee;

(3) The full names and addresses of all other parties, including, among others, beneficiaries, employers, coal mine operators, and insurance carriers where appropriate;

(4) The case file number which appears on the decision or order of the administrative law judge;

(5) The claimant's OWCP file number;

(6) The date of filing of the decision or order being appealed;

(7) Whether a motion for reconsideration of the decision or order of the administrative law judge has been filed by any party, the date such motion was filed, and whether the administrative law judge has acted on such motion for reconsideration (see § 802.206);

(8) The name and address of the attorney or other person, if any, who is representing the petitioner.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section notwithstanding, any written communication which reasonably permits identification of the decision from which an appeal is sought and the parties affected or aggrieved thereby, shall be sufficient notice for purposes of § 802.205.

(c) In the event that identification of the case is not possible from the information submitted, the Clerk of the Board shall so notify the petitioner and shall give the petitioner a reasonable time to produce sufficient information to permit identification of the case. For purposes of § 802.205, the notice shall be deemed to have been filed as of the date the insufficient information was received.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case: E. Associated Coal Corp. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 724 F.3d 561 (4th Cir. 2013).
E. Associated Coal Corp. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 724 F.3d 561 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “The ALJ explained that quarter-hour billing was permitted under 20 C.F.R. § 802.208 (d)(3) and, thus, that the use of such billing increments was not unreasonable per se.”
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Dir., Off. of Worker's Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 97 F.3d 815 (5th Cir. 1996). “1987) (holding that omission of portion of ALJ’s order which explained why medical evidence rebutted interim presumption of total disability was not mere clerical error so that 30 day limitations period for filing appeal did not begin to run until original order was amended),…”
The Dutra Grp., Inc. v. Kelly Zaradnik (9th Cir. 2023). “Dutra relies on Board regulations that allow “any written communication which reasonably permits identification of the decision from which an appeal is sought” to satisfy the requirement of a notice of appeal to the Board, 20 C.F.R. § 802.208 (b), even where 4 the notice is…”
Massey v. Peabody Coal Co., 387 F. App'x 344 (4th Cir. 2010). “While a notice of appeal must contain the date of filing of the decision or order appealed and the date on which a motion for reconsideration was filed if any, see 20 C.F.R. § 802.208 (a), the regulations also provide that, notwithstanding the required elements, "any written…”
Tucker v. Thames Valley Steel, 303 F. App'x 982 (2d Cir. 2008). “Because the BRB may treat as a notice of appeal “any written communication which reasonably permits identification of the decision from which an appeal is sought,” 20 C.F.R. § 802.208 (b), it was within its authority to consider the cover letter to the December 23, 2003 appeal,…”
Tucker v. Thames Valley Steel, 303 F. App'x 982 (2d Cir. 2008). “Because the BRB may treat as a notice of appeal “any written communication which reasonably permits identification of the decision from which an appeal is sought,” 20 C.F.R. § 802.208 (b), it was within its authority to consider the cover letter to the December 23, 2003 appeal,…”
— 20 C.F.R. § 802.208(b) — 1 case
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Dir., Off. of Worker's Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 97 F.3d 815 (5th Cir. 1996). “1987) (holding that omission of portion of ALJ’s order which explained why medical evidence rebutted interim presumption of total disability was not mere clerical error so that 30 day limitations period for filing appeal did not begin to run until original order was amended),…”
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.