Curtis W. Holt v. Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor

dissenting:

I dissent for the reasons set forth in the opinion originally filed in DeMarinis v. Donovan, 728 F.2d 1266 (9th Cir.1984).

790 F.2d 1417 Curtis W. HOLT, Petitioner, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Respondent. No. 82-7745. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 14, 1983. Decided June 2, 1986. David S. Krueger, Warren R. Jensen, Esq. Stokes, Steeves, Warren & Jensen, Arcata, Cal., for petitioner. Barbara J. Johnson, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. On Petition for Review of a Final Determination of the Secretary of Labor. Before KENNEDY and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and HOFFMAN, * District Judge. PER CURIAM: 1 We originally ordered judgment for petitioner Holt, holding that the California Employment Development Department (EDD) could not reconsider his application for benefits under Title II of the Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-250, Secs. 201-213 , 92 Stat. 163 , 172-82 (Redwood Act). We held that 29 C.F.R. Sec. 92.50(c) (reconsideration of a Redwood benefit application is subject to time limits applicable to reconsideration of state unemployment benefits) and California Unemployment Insurance Code section 1332(a) (West 1986) (providing a twenty-day period for…

We originally ordered judgment for petitioner Holt, holding that the California Employment Development Department (EDD) could not reconsider his application for benefits under Title II of the Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-250, §§ 201-213, 92 Stat. 163 , 172-82 (Redwood Act). We held that 29 C.F.R. § 92.50 (c) (reconsideration of a Redwood benefit application is subject to time limits applicable to reconsideration of state unemployment benefits) and California Unemployment Insurance Code section 1332(a) (West 1986) (providing a twenty-day period for reconsideration where no appeal taken) barred such reconsideration as untimely. Holt v. Donovan, 757 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam). Our decision was compelled by Demarinis v. Donovan, 728 F.2d 1266 (9th Cir.1984). The panel in Demarinis has now granted a petition for rehearing and vacated its judgment. See Demarinis v. Donovan, 790 F.2d 1419 , Order Granting Petition for Rehearing (9th Cir.1986). Accordingly, we grant the Secretary’s petition for rehearing. We withdraw our earlier opinion and affirm the Secretary’s determination that when Holt voluntarily quit his job for cause he was not “laid off”…