C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER VII—BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 802—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE › Subpart B—Prereview Procedures

20 C.F.R. § 802.211

Petition for review

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

(a) Within 30 days after the receipt of an acknowledgment of a notice of appeal issued pursuant to § 802.210, the petitioner shall submit a petition for review to the Board which petition lists the specific issues to be considered on appeal.

(b) Each petition for review shall be accompanied by a supporting brief, memorandum of law or other statement which: Specifically states the issues to be considered by the Board; presents, with appropriate headings, an argument with respect to each issue presented with references to transcripts, pieces of evidence and other parts of the record to which the petitioner wishes the Board to refer; a short conclusion stating the precise result the petitioner seeks on each issue and any authorities upon which the petition relies to support such proposed result. The Longshore Desk Book and Black Lung Desk Book are not intended as final legal authorities and should not be cited or relied upon as such.

(c) Copies of the petition for review and accompanying documents must be served upon all parties and the Solicitor of Labor.

(d) Failure to submit a petition for review and brief within the 30-day period or to comply with any part of this section may, in the discretion of the Board, cause the appeal to be deemed abandoned (see § 802.402).

(e) When a party appears pro se the Board may, in its discretion, waive formal compliance with the requirements of this section and may, depending upon the particular circumstances, prescribe an alternate method of furnishing such information as may be necessary for the Board to decide the merits of any such appeal.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Island Creek Coal Co. v. Melyndia Bryan, 937 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Island Creek Coal Co. v. Melyndia Bryan, 937 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a). This case thus falls into the second exhaustion category.”
Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000). · cites it 2× “, 20 CFR § 802.211 (a) (1999) (petition for review to Benefits Review Board must "lis[t] the specific issues to be considered on appeal").”
Joe Fleming v. AGRI, 987 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2021). · cites it 3× “at 108 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a)). These precedents make clear that the requirement in 7 C.”
Crockett Colleries, Inc. v. Barrett, 478 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 16× “Page 2 with the requirements set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (b). It therefore refused to review the merits of Crockett’s petition and summarily affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).”
Vaught v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corp. Health Plan, 546 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “2080 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a)). And, when regulations impose such a requirement, "courts reviewing agency action regularly ensure against the bypassing of that requirement by refusing to consider unexhausted issues.”
Andrews, Jr. v. Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “As an example of a regulation that “require[s] issue exhaustion in administrative appeals,” the Court quoted 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a), which requires an appellant to the Department of Labor Benefits Review Board 4 to “list[ ] the specific issues to be considered on appeal [to the…”
Mabel Samons v. Nat'l Mines Corp., 25 F.4th 455 (6th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a)–(b). If a party flouts this rule by raising a conclusory argument or an argument that does not identify any alleged errors in an administrative law judge’s decision, the Board has long held that the party forfeits any right to relief on the asserted…”
K & R Contractors, LLC v. Michael Keene, 86 F.4th 135 (4th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “2022); see 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a). A party must “list[] the specific issues to be considered on appeal” and “present[] .”
Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 61 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (D.N.M. 2014). · cites it 4× “Here, the Commissioner does not contend that any statute requires issue exhaustion in the request for review.”
Harry Calcutt III v. FDIC, 37 F.4th 293 (6th Cir. 2022). “3d at 749 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a)). However, there is an important difference between Bryan and this case.”
Alain Cuevas-Nuno v. William Barr, 969 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 2020). “3d at 749 (holding that 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a)’s requirement that petitions for review identify “specific issues to be considered” on appeal imposes an issue exhaustion requirement).”
Bradshaw v. Berryhill, 372 F. Supp. 3d 349 (E.D.N.C. 2019). “(citing 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a) (1999) ). Other courts considering this issue have found that a regulation requiring a party to identify the specific issues it wishes to raise on appeal creates an issue-exhaustion requirement.”
Island Creek Coal Co. v. Larry Young, 947 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2020). “20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a) (requiring petitions for review to contain “the specific issues to be considered” by the Board).”
Mahon v. United States Dep't of Agric., 485 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007). “5 Compare with 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (2002) (requiring that in a petition filed before the Benefits Review Board of the Department of Labor, the petition must “Specifically state[ ] the issues to be considered by the Board”).”
Lin Zhong v. United States Dep't of Just., & Attorney Gen. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2007). “Compare 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a) (petitions for review by the Benefits Review Board must “list the specific issues to be considered on appeal”), with 8 C.”
Environmentel, LLC v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 661 F.3d 80 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “We conclude that Environmentel waived its arguments regarding the ex parte issue and public notice issue.”
Am. Stevedores, Inc., & Michigan Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Vincent Salzano, & Dir., Off. of Workers Comp. Programs, 538 F.2d 933 (2d Cir. 1976). “4 Obviously, being successful below, the Notice of Appeal was not that of the petitioners.”
Island Creek Coal Co. v. Denny Marcum, 657 F. App'x 370 (6th Cir. 2016). “This led the Board to conclude that it could not review even a general argument regarding disability causation, as it "must limit its review to contentions of error that are specifically raised by the parties.”
Bolack Minerals Co. v. Norton, 370 F. Supp. 2d 161 (D.D.C. 2005). “2080 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a) (1999)). Plaintiff cannot seriously argue here that the parties were not expected to press issues to the IBLA.”
Saf. Nat'l Cas. Corp. v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 711 F. Supp. 2d 697 (S.D. Tex. 2008). “2080 (citing 20 CFR § 802.211 (a) (1999)). By contrast, the regulation governing bond appeals simply states that an appeal may be summarily dismissed if the party states no reason for the appeal.”
Drummond Co., Inc. v. Dir., OWCP, 650 F. App'x 690 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a); Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.”
Elkhorn Eagle Mining Co. v. Atlantia Higgins (6th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “The next—and most important—question is whether Elkhorn exhausted its Appointments Clause challenge by raising it for the first time in a motion for remand before the Board’s decision.”
David Stanley Consultants v. Dir. Off. of Workers Com (3rd Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “5 This rule derives from 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (b), which requires that petitions for review include a supporting brief that “[s]pecifically states the issues to be considered by the Board.”
New Lifecare Hospitals of North Carolina LLC v. Cochran (D.D.C. 2020). · cites it 2× “Compare 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a) (Department of Labor regulation stating that “the petitioner shall submit a petition for review to the Board which petition lists the specific issues to be considered on appeal” (emphasis added)) with 42 C.”
Lockworth, Inc. v. OWCP (6th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “Black lung benefits adjudication regulations require that litigants raise issues before the ALJ as a prerequisite to Nos.”
Scalia v. Chevron Mining, Inc. (W.D. Ky. 2021). · cites it 2× “2019); 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a)) (emphasis added).”
Fitzpatrick v. United States Dep't of Labor (9th Cir. 2026). · cites it 2× “Fitzpatrick’s contention that the BRB failed to comply with 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (b) is likewise meritless.”
Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. Nolan Brantley, 701 F. App'x 826 (11th Cir. 2017). “20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a); see also Sims, 530 U.”
Steve Bussanich v. Ports Am. (9th Cir. 2019). “20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a). Because Bussanich did not raise this argument 2 below, he has forfeited the issue on appeal.”
Charles Zumwalt v. Nassco (9th Cir. 2019). “” 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a). Because Winter did not raise this argument in his petition for review to the Board, he has forfeited the issue on appeal.”
Daniel Kupke v. Owcp (9th Cir. 2020). “103, 108 (2000) (explaining that when an agency’s regulations require issue exhaustion in administrative appeals, “courts reviewing agency action regularly ensure against the bypassing of that requirement by refusing to consider unexhausted issues”); 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a)…”
Ishan Al-Koorwi v. William P. Barr (6th Cir. 2020). “3d at 749 (holding that 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a)’s requirement that petitions for review identify “specific issues to be considered” on appeal imposes an issue exhaustion requirement).”
Rick Martin v. Sundial Marine Tug & Barge Wrk (9th Cir. 2021). “2019); 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a). further treatment.”
Harry Calcutt III v. FDIC (6th Cir. 2022). “3d at 749 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a)). However, there is an important difference between Bryan and this case.”
Little T Coal Co. v. OWCP (6th Cir. 2023). “20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a). As we explained in Island Creek Coal Co.”
Island Creek Coal Co. v. James Fields (4th Cir. 2023). “” 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (b). “Forfeiture results when a party fails to raise an issue at the appropriate time.”
Consol PA Coal Co. LLC v. Dir. Off. of Workers Comp. Programs U (3rd Cir. 2024). “”17 We have held that the doctrine of administrative exhaustion applies to BLBA claims and “a court should not consider an argument which has not been raised in the agency proceedings which preceded the 14 JA 529.”
Zhong v. U.S. Dep't of Just., Attorney Gen. Gonzales (2d Cir. 2007). “Compare 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a) (petitions for review by the Benefits Review Board must “list the specific issues to be considered on appeal”), with 8 C.”
Vaught v. Scottsdale Healthcare (9th Cir. 2008). “at 108 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (a)). And, when regulations impose such a requirement, “courts reviewing agency action regularly ensure against the bypass- ing of that requirement by refusing to consider unexhausted issues.”
Stasium v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 50 F. App'x 503 (3rd Cir. 2002). “See 20 C.F.R. § 802.211 (b) (Petition for Review must be *508 accompanied by a supporting brief or other statement specifically listing the issues to be reviewed by the Board and which sets forth argument with respect to each issue).”
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.