IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60505
Summary Calendar
MARY SUE HUTCHISON, Widow of
RAY HUTCHISON,
Petitioner,
versus
PETROLEUM HELICOPTERS, INC.; AMERICAN HOME
ASSURANCE COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Benefits Review Board
(00-792)
--------------------
February 28, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Mary Sue Hutchison petitions this court, seeking
review of the Benefits Review Board’s (the “BRB”) affirmance of an
unfavorable decision of an Administative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The
decision in question was issued by the ALJ following the BRB’s
remand of an earlier decision and dismisses the Petitioner’s claim
for additional benefits. This time, the BRB interpreted the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Petitioner’s appeal as taking issue with the ALJ’s ruling that her
claim is time barred.
The BRB agreed with the ALJ’s determination that the
Petitioner’s claim was not timely filed and thus was time barred.
The BRB determined that the only basis advanced by the Petitioner
for the timeliness of her filing is a 1981 letter from her lawyer
to the lawyer for her deceased husband’s employer. Noting that
this letter was never filed with the District Director, the BRB
reiterated its consistent requirement that, to constitute a claim
for purposes of tolling the statute of limitation, it must be filed
with the District Director. In addition, the BRB stated that the
letter’s mention of the possibility of Petitioner’s filing a claim
if in the future she should become eligible does not constitute the
assertion of a claim which, according to the BRB, must assert an
immediate right to compensation.
We have reviewed the arguments of counsel and the facts and
legal authorities referenced in their appellate briefs, and we have
carefully considered the aforesaid decision and order of the BRB.
As a result, we are convinced that the BRB’s affirmance of the
ALJ’s denial of Petitioner’s claims as time barred is correct for
the reasons lucidly explained in the BRB’s opinion. We therefore
dismiss the instant petition for review for the reasons expressed
by the BRB.
PETITION DISMISSED.
2