In this quarter the Board issued several published decisions.

In Lui v. American University of Afghanistan, the Board had harsh words for an ALJ who entered an order of dismissal based on lack of coverage under the Defense Base Act when the Board had specifically held claimant had coverage. It held the ALJ must implement the letter and spirit of the mandate absent limited exceptions, such as when controlling legal authority changed dramatically, significant new evidence, not earlier obtainable in the exercise of due diligence, came to light, or there was a blatant error in the prior decision which, if uncorrected, would result in a serious injustice.

In Dominquez v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation (and two other consolidated cases), the Board held the thirty day deadline to appeal to the Board is a claim processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement, and was subject to waiver and forfeiture.

Gonzalez v. Fenix Marine Services, Ltd., held when a claimant dies before a hearing, the estate can seek payment of unpaid compensation prior to death, but the ALJ, per FRCP 25(a), must identify a person who can carry on decedent’s claims on behalf of the estate. This person need not be an appointed executor or administrator but should be someone who would best represent the decedent’s interest or who had a professed interest in securing the benefits owed to the estate.

The Board also issued an unpublished decision, Quiroz-Greene v. BAE Systems San Francisco Ship Repair, Inc., holding that settlements with asbestos bankruptcy trusts are subject to §33 and require the claimant to secure consent from the employer/carrier. This decision upsets conventional wisdom that these settlements did not require consent because the amount awarded was almost always subject to a schedule based on the severity of the illness.