Fitzpatrick v. United States Department of Labor

── Fitzpatrick v. United States Department of Labor ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN FRANCIS FITZPATRICK, No. 25-2486 Agency Nos. BRB-2502-438096 Petitioner, BRB-2503-440783 BRB-2504-448683 v. Benefits Review Board UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM* LABOR, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. John Francis Fitzpatrick petitions pro se for review of a decision of the Benefit Review Board (“BRB”) affirming an administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”). We have jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c). We review the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). BRB’s decision for errors of law and for adherence to the substantial evidence standard, and conduct de novo review on questions of law. Iopa v. Satchuk-Young Bros., Ltd., 916 F.3d 1298, 1300 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm. The BRB did not err in determining that the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (“OWCP”) and the ALJ had jurisdiction over Fitzpatrick’s claim for benefits. See Cruz v. Nat’l Steel & Shipbuilding Co., 910 F.3d 1263, 1267 (9th Cir. 2018) (describing the LHWCA’s “mandatory framework for compensation of maritime employees injured on the navigable waters of the United States” and noting that the OWCP “has sole authority to investigate a claim and hold a hearing, and must either reject the claim or make an award” (citing 33 U.S.C. § 919; 20 C.F.R. § 1.2(e)); see also 33 U.S.C. § 919(d) (providing that any hearing held under the LHWCA shall be conducted by an ALJ in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 554). To the extent that Fitzpatrick contends that the BRB failed to address the OWCP and the ALJ’s jurisdiction over the claim, the contention is meritless. Fitzpatrick’s contention that the BRB failed to comply with 20 C.F.R. § 802.211(b) is likewise meritless. See 20 C.F.R. § 802.211(b) (imposing requirements on a petitioner seeking the BRB’s review of an ALJ’s decision or order). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 2 25-2486 in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions are denied. PETITION DENIED. 3 25-2486