Dale Pennie v. Benefits Review Board;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
GT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DALE PENNIE,
Petitioner,
v.
BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD; et al.,
Respondents,
MID-COAST MARINE; SAIF
CORPORATION,
Real Parties in Interest.
No. 08-70121
BRB No. 07-0386
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Benefits Review Board
Submitted December 15, 2009**
FILED
DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

GT/Research 08-70121 2
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Dale Pennie petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s order
issued on October 19, 2007. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s
order denying Pennie’s request to modify an earlier award of compensation under
the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950.
We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Pennie’s petition for review was received by this court more than sixty days
after the Board’s order issued. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the
petition. See 33 U.S.C. 921(c); Felt v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,
11 F.3d 951, 952-53 (9th Cir. 1993) (order) (explaining that section 921(c)’s
sixty-day filing period is a “jurisdictional requirement,” and equitable
considerations are unavailing); see also Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Dir., Office of
Workers’ Comp. Programs, 29 F.3d 513, 516 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The policy
requiring that appeals be timely taken is so strong that ministerial failures by a
clerk cannot be allowed to overcome it.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --