Michael N. Hale v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation Aetna Casualty and Surety Company

78 F.3d 593, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 13627, 1996 WL 95238
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 5, 1996
Docket95-70471
StatusUnpublished

This text of 78 F.3d 593 (Michael N. Hale v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation Aetna Casualty and Surety Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Michael N. Hale v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 78 F.3d 593, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 13627, 1996 WL 95238 (9th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

78 F.3d 593

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Michael N. HALE, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; Todd
Pacific Shipyards Corporation; Aetna Casualty and
Surety Company, Respondents.

No. 95-70471.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 27, 1996.*
Decided March 5, 1996.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Michael N. Hale petitions for review pro se of a decision of the Benefits Review Board issued on March 27, 1995. Hale filed his petition for review in this court on June 5, 1995, more than sixty days after the issuance of the Benefits Review Board's decision. See 33 U.S.C. § 921(c).

Accordingly, we dismiss Hale's untimely petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Felt v. Director, OWCP, 11 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir.1993) (order dismissing untimely petition for review for lack of jurisdiction).

DISMISSED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 F.3d 593, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 13627, 1996 WL 95238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-n-hale-v-director-office-of-workers-compen-ca9-1996.