Tina Dierkes v. U.S. Department of Labor

Good Law
397 F.3d 1246·2005 WL 372310·2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 2736
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 17, 200503-73141California626 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

We previously issued an order.to show cause why this petition for review should not be dismissed as untimely. We have considered the responses submitted by both parties and now dismiss the petition.

I

Tina Dierkes petitions for review of a decision of the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (“ARB”). The timeliness of Dierkes’s petition is governed by the employee protection provision of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which provides, “The petition for review must be filed within sixty days from the issuance of the Secretary’s order.” 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (c)(1) (emphasis added). The date of June 30, 2003, is indicated on the first page of the ARB’s decision denying Dierkes’s claim. Sixty days from June 30th is Friday, August 29th. Although Dierkes did not file her petition until Tuesday, September 2nd, she contends that the petition is nevertheless timely because the. filing period purportedly did not commence until the ARB’s decision was postmarked on July 1st.

We have not previously had occasion to define the term “issuance” in 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (c)(1). We have, however, interpreted a nearly identical provision governing review of Workers’ Compensation…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.