Click for PDF Version



BRB No. 11-0876


LANTIC FIELDS

		Claimant-Petitioner
		Cross-Respondent
	v.

FLUOR CORPORATION

	and

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, successor by merger to
FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY
OF NEW YORK

		Employer/Carrier-
		Respondents
		Cross-Petitioners


LANTIC FIELDS

		Claimant-Petitioner

	v.

FLUOR CORPORATION

	and

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, successor by merger to
FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY
OF NEW YORK

		Employer/Carrier-
		Respondents



)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)



BRB No. 11-0876
and 11-0876A




DATE ISSUED: 12/20/2012













BRB No. 12-0361














ORDER on MOTION
for RECONSIDERATION


Claimant, without the assistance of counsel, has filed a document with the Board which we are construing as a timely motion for reconsideration of the Board’s decision in Fields v. Fluor Corp., BRB Nos. 11-0876/A, 12-0361 (Sept. 20, 2012)(unpub.). 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(5); 20 C.F.R. §802.407. In response, employer has filed a motion to quash, averring that claimant’s letter does not meet the requirements for a motion for reconsideration; alternatively, employer requests an extension of time in order to respond to claimant’s motion.

In its decision, the Board remanded this case for further findings by the administrative law judge regarding the issues of claimant’s entitlement to additional benefits for his knee condition and employer’s liability for medical expenses related to the work injury to claimant’s back and shoulder. We have reviewed the Board’s decision and find no basis for altering any part of it. Consequently, we deny claimant’s motion for reconsideration and we affirm the Board’s decision. 1 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(5); 20 C.F.R. §§801.301(b), (c), 802.409.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

REGINA C. McGRANERY

Administrative Appeals Judge

____________________________________

BETTY JEAN HALL

Administrative Appeals Judge+

____________________________________

JUDITH S. BOGGS

Administrative Appeals Judge

ENDNOTES

1. Employer’s motions are denied as moot, given our disposition herein.



NOTE: This is a LHCA Unpublished Document


To Top of Document  | Return to LHCA Unpublished December 2012 Decisions Index