Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-09562/USCOURTS-ca10-91-09562-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Pierce
Petitioner
Railroad Retirement Board
Respondent

Document Text:

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci~cuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JIJL 2 9 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

WILLIAM PIERCE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-9562 

) (RRB Appeal No. 3876) 

) (Petition for Review) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Petitioner seeks review of a decisi9n of the Railroad 

Retirement Board (Board) calculating Petitioner's retirement 

annuity. Although Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to 

retirement benefits based upon his employment in the railroad 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-9562 Document: 010110275158 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 1
industry for over thirty years and his having attained the age of 

sixty, see 45 u.s.c. § 23la(a)(l)(ii), the Board calculated 

Petitioner's retirement annuity based upon less than thirty years 

of railroad employment, see 45 u.s.c § 231a(a)(l)(iii). The 

parties' disagreement focuses upon the Board's refusal to credit, 

as railroad employment, Petitioner's work with Burlington Northern 

Land Development Corporation (BNLDC), between 1974 and 1982. The 

Board determined, however, that Petitioner's challenge to the 

status of his employment with BNLDC was time-barred. 

This court has jurisdiction to review the Board's decision 

under 45 U.S.C. § 231g, and will review that decision only to 

determine whether its factual findings are supported by 

substantial evidence and its decision is not based upon an error 

of law. See Martin v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 935 F.2d 230, 

232-33 (11th Cir. 1991). Upon consideration of the parties' 

arguments and the record on appeal, we affirm the Board's 

decision. 

The Railroad Retirement Act, 45 u.s.c. §§ 231-23lu (Act), 

requires employers covered by the Act to provide the Board with 

annual reports of employees' service and compensation for the 

preceding year. 45 u.s.c. § 231h; 20 C.F.R. § 209.6(a). The 

Board, in turn, prepares and issues to each covered employee a 

certificate documenting that employee's creditable railroad 

service and compensation for the preceding year. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 209.ll(a). The parties refer to these certificates as BA-6 

forms. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-9562 Document: 010110275158 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 2
Beginning in 1942, Petitioner held a variety of positions 

with several railroads. In 1973, Petitioner began working in the 

land development department of the Burlington Northern Railroad. 

For each of these years of railroad employment, Petitioner 

received an annual BA-6 form. 

In November 1974, Burlington Northern transferred Petitioner 

to the newly incorporated BNLDC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 

Burlington Northern engaged in real estate development. None of 

Petitioner's duties or working conditions changed as a result of 

this transfer. Following the transfer, however, Petitioner no 

longer received an annual BA-6 form from the Board. 

Following the transfer, Petitioner did continue to receive an 

annual statement of benefits from his employer, which included a 

summary of his retirement benefits. Prior to 1975, the annual 

benefits summaries from Burlington Northern reflected railroad 

retirement benefits. Beginning with the statement of benefits 

Petitioner received in early 1975, however, following his transfer 

to BNLDC, those annual statements instead calculated Petitioner's 

retirement benefits under social security. Petitioner, whose 

employment with BNLDC ended in 1982, did not challenge the status 

of his BNLDC employment until the Board calculated his retirement 

benefits in 1987. 

45 U.S.C. § 231h provides that the Board's compensation 

records become conclusive if not challenged within four years. 

See Pawelczak v. United States, 931 F.2d 108, 109 (D.C. Cir. 

1991). The Board determined that its calculation of 

Petitioner's retirement benefits was accurate in light of the 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-9562 Document: 010110275158 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 3
Board's records, which reflected that Petitioner did not earn any 

compensation covered under the Act while working for BNLDC. The 

Board concluded that, because Petitioner had failed to challenge 

those records within four years, his challenge was time-barred. 

Section 231h specifically provides that the lack of a report 

of compensation to the Board, absent an objection asserted within 

four years, conclusively establishes that an employee did not 

receive any compensation creditable under the Act during the 

preceding year: 

Employers shall file with the Board ... returns 

of compensation of employees, ... and the fact that 

the Board's records show that no return was made of the 

compensation claimed to have been paid to an employee 

during a particular period shall be taken as conclusive 

that no compensation was paid to such employee during 

that period, unless ... the failure to make return of 

the compensation ... is called to the attention of the 

Board within four years after the day on which return of 

the compensation was required to be made. 

45 U.S.C. § 231h. 

Petitioner had received BA-6 forms from the Board for every 

year of his railroad employment up until his transfer to BNLDC. 

The absence of an annual BA-6 form for the years following his 

transfer, coupled with the annual benefits statements Petitioner 

continued to receive from his employers, which indicated that, 

after his transfer to BNLDC, his retirement benefits were 

calculated as social security rather than as railroad benefits, 

gave Petitioner sufficient notice that his status as a railroad 

employee under the Act had changed. Because Petitioner failed to 

challenge this treatment of his BNLDC employment as nonrailroad 

work within four years, the Board did not err in concluding that 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-9562 Document: 010110275158 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 4
Petitioner's attempt to change the status of his BNLDC employment 

now was time-barred. 

Petitioner asserts that, even if he has failed to comply with 

§ 231h's time limits, this failure should be excused because the 

annual benefits statements he received from BNLDC were 

sufficiently similar to the BA-6 forms he had received while 

employed by Burlington Northern that he had been lulled into 

believing his status under the Act had not changed following his 

transfer to BNLDC. Courts have held that the Board does possess 

the discretion to reopen and correct inaccurate records even 

beyond the four-year limitations period, although the Board is not 

required to do so. See Pawelczak, 931 F.2d at 110. In the 

circumstances of this case, however, the Board did not err in 

refusing to reopen and correct its records 

expiration of the four-year time period. 

following the 

The Board's decision is AFFIRMED. 

strike Petitioner's reply brief is DENIED. 

The Board's motion to 

Entered for the Court 

Wade Brorby 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-9562 Document: 010110275158 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 5