Court Opinion

ID: 9402717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 17:02:07.136955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:02.342300
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-1292                                                September Term, 2022
                                                                RRRB-08/08/2022 Decision
                                                      Filed On: June 16, 2023
Laura A. Gutteridge Anos,

             Petitioner

      v.

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board,

             Respondent

                   ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM AN ORDER
                    OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

      BEFORE:       Millett, Pillard, and Rao, Circuit Judges

                                    JUDGMENT

      This petition for review of an order of the United States Railroad Retirement
Board was considered on the briefs and appendix filed by the parties. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

       ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied. The
Railroad Retirement Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and not
based on any error of law. See Reed v. R.R. Ret. Bd., 145 F.3d 373, 375 (D.C. Cir.
1998) (per curiam). Under the “highly deferential” substantial-evidence standard, we
must abide by the Board’s “reasonable findings and conclusions,” even if the evidence
could have supported a contrary view. Marshall Cnty. Coal Co. v. Fed. Mine Safety &
Health Rev. Comm'n, 923 F.3d 192, 201 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting Cumberland Coal
Res., LP v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 717 F.3d 1020, 1028 (D.C. Cir.
2013)). Here, the Board reasonably found petitioner’s request untimely with respect to
the period through December 2010, reasonably concluding that neither the fraud nor
the equity exceptions to the four-year time bar applied. See 45 U.S.C. § 231h; 20
C.F.R. § 211.16(a), (b)(1), (2)(iv). As to petitioner’s timely request with respect to the
month of January 2011, the Board likewise reasonably found that petitioner did not
serve as an employee of CSX Transportation during that month.
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-1292                                                September Term, 2022

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                          Page 2