Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Coulombe

First Circuit

Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Coulombe

888 F.2d 179, 1989 WL 125730

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 1989

DocketNo. 89-1270

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 888 F.2d 179 (Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Coulombe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Coulombe, 888 F.2d 179, 1989 WL 125730 (1st Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on a petition for review by the employer of a decision of the Benefits Review Board which affirmed a denial of medical expenses. The Board reversed an administrative law judge’s conclusion that the employee was ineligible, but affirmed the decision denying reim[180]*180bursement because the requirement for filing a report was not met.

Because the Benefit Review Board ruled in petitioner’s favor on the award, its discussion of respondent’s eligibility is pure dicta. Such discussion cannot have any collateral estoppel effect because it is not essential to the judgment. McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 141, 101 S.Ct. 2224, 2231, 68 L.Ed.2d 724 (1981); Balcom v. Lynn Ladder and Scaffolding Co., Inc., 806 F.2d 1127 (1st Cir.1986). For this reason, we have previously held that “[a] party cannot appeal a judgment entered in its favor, because it lacks a ‘personal stake in the appeal’ sufficient to support appellate jurisdiction.” Balcom, 806 F.2d at 1127 (citing Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 336, 100 S.Ct. 1166, 1173, 63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980)). Similarly, petitioner is not “adversely affected or aggrieved by a final order of the Board,” 33 U.S.C. § 921(c), and lacks standing under the statute to have the decision reviewed. Pittston Stevedoring Corp. v. Dellaventura, 544 F.2d 35, 44-45 (2d Cir.1976).

We therefore dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Costs to respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on a petition for review by the employer of a decision of the Benefits Review Board which affirmed a denial of medical expenses. The Board reversed an administrative law judge’s conclusion that the employee was ineligible, but affirmed the decision denying reim[180]*180bursement because the requirement for filing a report was not met.

Because the Benefit Review Board ruled in petitioner’s favor on the award, its discussion of respondent’s eligibility is pure dicta. Such discussion cannot have any collateral estoppel effect because it is not essential to the judgment. McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 141, 101 S.Ct. 2224, 2231, 68 L.Ed.2d 724 (1981); Balcom v. Lynn Ladder and Scaffolding Co., Inc., 806 F.2d 1127 (1st Cir.1986). For this reason, we have previously held that “[a] party cannot appeal a judgment entered in its favor, because it lacks a ‘personal stake in the appeal’ sufficient to support appellate jurisdiction.” Balcom, 806 F.2d at 1127 (citing Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 336, 100 S.Ct. 1166, 1173, 63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980)). Similarly, petitioner is not “adversely affected or aggrieved by a final order of the Board,” 33 U.S.C. § 921(c), and lacks standing under the statute to have the decision reviewed. Pittston Stevedoring Corp. v. Dellaventura, 544 F.2d 35, 44-45 (2d Cir.1976).

We therefore dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Costs to respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

888 F.2d 179, 1989 WL 125730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bath-iron-works-corp-v-coulombe-ca1-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack