Opinion ID: 684069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction to Review the First Two BRB Orders

Text: 26 The LHWCA provides judicial review only for final orders of the BRB. 33 U.S.C. Sec. 921(c) (1988). At an earlier stage of Burns's case, this court held that the second Board decision remanding to the ALJ for further findings was not a final order and could not be appealed. Burns v. George Hyman Construction Co., No. 87-1261 (D.C.Cir. Oct. 27, 1987). A threshold question is therefore whether this court now has jurisdiction to review all three BRB orders, or only the third (final) order. 27 The Administrative Procedure Act instructs that all three BRB opinions are now properly before us: A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling not directly reviewable is subject to review on the review of the final agency action. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 704 (1988). Indeed, as a unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit recently explained: 28 Even if this provision of the Administrative Procedure Act did not apply, logic and due process would require that this Court be able to review the decision to remand.... If this Court could not now review the decision to remand, the Board would be free to remand close cases until the ALJ produced an order that comported with the Board's view of the facts. The Board cannot usurp the fact-finding responsibility of the ALJ through its limited power of review. 29 Mijangos v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 948 F.2d 941, 944 (5th Cir.1991). 9