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. § 802.212

Response to petition for review

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

(a) Within 30 days after the receipt of a petition for review, each party upon whom it was served may submit to the Board a brief, memorandum, or other statement in response to it.

(b) Arguments in response briefs shall be limited to those which respond to arguments raised in petitioner's brief and to those in support of the decision below. Other arguments will not be considered by the Board (see § 802.205(b)).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1986–2018 · leading case: Consolidation Coal Company v. OWCP
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Consolidation Coal Company v. OWCP (2018) ca7 · cites it 6× “The Employer also filed a response, and it moved to strike the Director's brief as violating 20 C.F.R. § 802.212 (b), which limits the Board's consideration of arguments in response briefs to those that respond to arguments raised in the petitioner's brief or that support the…”
Charles Boyd Malcomb v. Island Creek Coal Company Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Depa (1994) ca4 · cites it 3× “” 20 C.F.R. § 802.212 (b). The Board determined that these regulations required that Malcomb file a cross-appeal in order to challenge the ALJ’s finding that he was not entitled to benefits under section 727.”
Consolidation Coal Company v. OWCP (2018) ca7 · cites it 6× “The Employer also filed a response, and it moved to strike the Director’s brief as violating 20 C.F.R. § 802.212 (b), which limits the Board’s consideration of arguments in re- sponse briefs to those that respond to arguments raised in the 3The ALJ also found that Ross did not…”
Consolidation Coal Company v. OWCP (2018) ca7 · cites it 6× “The Employer also filed a response, and it moved to strike the Director’s brief as violating 20 C.F.R. § 802.212 (b), which limits the Board’s consideration of arguments in re- sponse briefs to those that respond to arguments raised in the 3The ALJ also found that Ross did not…”
Sewell Coal Company v. O'Dell (2001) ca4 “” 20 C.F.R. § 802.212 (b). Moreover, “[w]hen a decision or order is favorable to a party (i.”
Carr v. Central Appalachian Coal Co. (1986) ca4 “Claimant did not file a reply reply as she was entitled to do under 20 C.F.R. 802.212, nor did she in any manner contest or respond to the coal company's waiver arguments.”
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.