Opinion ID: 2975451
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Order Denying Reconsideration

Text: In his motion for reconsideration, McNeill asked the ARB to reopen his case in order to permit him to supplement the record with further documentary evidence which, he argues, established that he was terminated. McNeill’s motion to reconsider was based on his belief that the ARB should reopen the case to consider evidence not in the record. The ARB determined that it was subject to the same standard for reopening a record as was the ALJ who originally presided over the hearing, i.e., it could not reopen the record unless the party movant demonstrated that there was “‘new and material evidence [that] has become available which was not readily available prior to the closing of the record.’” J.A. at 275 (Order Denying Recons. at 4) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 18.54(c)). McNeill does not set forth what the standard of review is for evaluating the ARB’s Order Denying Reconsideration. Crane argues that we should review for an abuse of discretion. In Belt v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 163 F. App’x 382 (6th Cir. 2006) (unpublished), we applied the abuse-of-discretion standard to review an ARB decision refusing to reopen its final decision. Id. at 389-90. Under any standard of review, however, McNeill’s argument that the ARB erred in denying his motion is without merit. 14 The ARB rested its denial of reconsideration on three grounds, one of which was that McNeill did not demonstrate that the documents he proffered were “not readily available” before the ARB issued its Final Decision and Order in July 2005. J.A. at 278 (Order Denying Recons. at 6). The ARB reasoned that Crane asserted (and McNeill did not dispute) that McNeill had acquired the documents in question no later than October 2003. This was more than one and one-half years before the ARB issued its Final Decision and Order. McNeill failed to provide the ARB with any reason for his failure to move to reopen the record while the case was still pending with the ARB. On appeal, McNeill again fails to address why he did not move to reopen the record while the case was pending with the ARB. Because McNeill has provided us with no argument to contradict the ARB’s reasoning, the ARB decision stands. Accordingly, we deny McNeill’s petition for review with respect to the Order Denying Reconsideration.