20 C.F.R. § 802.301

Scope of review

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

(a) The Benefits Review Board is not empowered to engage in a de novo proceeding or unrestricted review of a case brought before it. The Board is authorized to review the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the decision or order appealed from was based. Such findings of fact and conclusions of law may be set aside only if they are not, in the judgment of the Board, supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole or in accordance with law.

(b) Parties shall not submit new evidence to the Board. Any evidence submitted by a party which is not part of the record developed at the hearing before the administrative law judge will be returned without being considered by the Board.

(c) Any party who considers new evidence necessary to the adjudication of the claim may apply for modification pursuant to section 22 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 922. A party who files a petition for modification shall promptly notify the Board of such filing. Upon receipt of such notification, the Board shall dismiss the case without prejudice. Should the petition for modification be declined, the petitioner may file a request for reinstatement of his or her appeal with the Board within 30 days of the date the petition is declined. Should the petition for modification be accepted, any party adversely affected by the decision or order granting or denying modification may file a new appeal with the Board within 30 days of the date the decision or order on modification is filed.

[52 FR 27292, July 20, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 16519, May 9, 1988]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 83 cases (9 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). “§ 921 (b)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 802.301 (a)–(b). By requiring parties to highlight specific errors, the regulation implements these statutory limits on the Board’s review.”

Luther D. Mullen v. Otis Bowen, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Richard G. Shepherd v. Otis Bowen, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986). “, 20 C.F.R. § 802.301 (1985) (Regulations of Secretary of Labor under the Longshoremens' and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act which state that the "Benefits Review Board is not empowered to engage in a de novo proceeding or unrestricted review of a case brought before it.”

Lewis Gibas v. Saginaw Mining Co. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs & Benefits Review Bd., 748 F.2d 1112 (6th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 802.301 (1984); Director, OWCP v.”

Old Ben Coal Co. v. Mary E. Prewitt, & Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 755 F.2d 588 (7th Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “The Act provides that “the findings of fact in the [administrative law judge’s] decision under review .”

Harold Zimmerman v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 871 F.2d 564 (6th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 802.301 (a). Rather, an AU’s “findings of fact and conclusions of law may be set aside only if they are not, in the judgment of the Board, supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole or in accordance with law.”

Apogee Coal Co. v. OWCP, 113 F.4th 751 (7th Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “” 20 C.F.R. § 802.301 (a). Board decisions may be appealed to the court of appeals “for the circuit in which the [claimant’s] injury oc- curred.”

Charles R. GROSS, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Appellee, 785 F.2d 1163 (4th Cir. 1986). “970 (a), which we interpreted in Parris to allow Appeals Council review only for abuse of discretion, error of law, lack of substantial evidence, or broad policy or procedural issues, to *1171 20 C.F.R. § 802.301 , governing the Benefits Review Board’s scope of review: The…”

Rockwood Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 917 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 921 (b)(3) ; 20 C.F.R. § 802.301 (b). Instead, a panel of three ALJs considers the record and issues a decision.”

Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Lilburn Rowe, 710 F.2d 251 (6th Cir. 1983). “§ 921 (b)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 802.301 . We hold that the Board failed to adhere to its limited statutory function.”

Vineland Fireworks Co. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 544 F.3d 509 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 921 (b)(3); see also 20 C.F.R. § 802.301 (stating that the Benefits Review Board "is not empowered to engage in a de novo proceeding" but must instead conduct a review for substantial evidence).”

Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Quarto Mining Co. Elba F. Bellomy, 901 F.2d 532 (6th Cir. 1990). “1989); 20 C.F.R. § 802.301 (a). This Circuit has repeatedly ruled that we must affirm the Board’s decision if the Board has not committed any legal errors or exceeded its statutory scope of review of the administrative law judge’s factual determinations.”

Consolidation Coal Co. v. OWCP, 911 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “212 (b) provides that the Board may not consider arguments in response briefs unless the arguments respond to issues raised in the petitioner's brief or support the decision below, and the Director's response brief contained arguments that Ross had not raised in his petition for…”

Show all 83 citing cases →

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.