Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Coulombe

Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Coulombe, 888 F.2d 179 (1st Cir. 1989)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1989-10-25
Topic
employee-benefits-and-executive-compensation

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that a party cannot appeal a favorable judgment

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Coulombe. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
14 opinions
BATH IRON WORKS CORP. v. COULOMBE,888 F.2d 179(1st Cir. 1989)
BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION AND COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANIES,
PETITIONERS, v. JEANNINE D. COULOMBE AND DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, RESPONDENTS.
No. 89-1270.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Heard September 14, 1989.
Decided October 25, 1989.
Stephen Hessert with whom Michelle Jodoin LaFond and Norman, Hanson DeTroy, Portland, Me., were on brief for Bath Iron Works Corp. and Commercial Union Ins. Companies.

Dennis Levandoski with whom Kettle, Carter, Levandoski, Anderson Sharon, Portland, Me., were on brief, for Jeannine D. Coulombe.
Petition for review of decision of Benefits Review Board.
Before BREYER, Circuit Judge, COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and MAYER, Circuit Judge.fn*
PER CURIAM.
[1] This case is before us on a petition for review by the employer of a decision of the Benefits Review Board which affirmed a denial of medical expenses. The Board reversed an administrative law judge's conclusion that the employee was ineligible, but affirmed the decision denying reimbursementPage 180because the requirement for filing a report was not met.

[2] Because the Benefit Review Board ruled in petitioner's favor on the award, its discussion of respondent's eligibility is pure dicta. Such discussion cannot have any collateral estoppel effect because it is not essential to the judgment.McDaniel v.Sanchez,452 U.S. 130,141,101 S.Ct. 2224,2231,68 L.Ed.2d 724(1981);Balcom v. Lynn Ladder and Scaffolding Co., Inc.,806 F.2d 1127(1st Cir. 1986). For this reason, we have previously held that "[a] party cannot appeal a judgment entered in its favor, because it lacks a `personal stake in the appeal' sufficient to support appellate jurisdiction."Balcom,806 F.2d at 1127(citingDeposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper,445 U.S. 326,336,100 S.Ct. 1166,1173,63 L.Ed.2d 427(1980)). Similarly, petitioner is not "adversely affected or aggrieved by a final order of the Board,"33 U.S.C. § 921(c), and lacks standing under the statute to have the decision reviewed.Pittston Stevedoring Corp. v. Dellaventura,544 F.2d 35,44-45(2d Cir. 1976).

[3]We therefore dismiss the petition for review for lack ofjurisdiction.Costs to respondent.
  1. Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. ↩