Conclusion
Substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s finding that United did not delay Hafer’s VRMA payments because of his protected activity. Therefore, the ALJ correctly concluded that United did not violate AIR 21. Furthermore, we have considered, but rejected, Hafer’s additional arguments on appeal. Accordingly, we DENY the complaint.
SO ORDERED.
WAYNE C. BEYER
Administrative Appeals Judge
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 Transcript (Tr.) at 203-04.
2 Id. at 292.
3 Id. at 60-61, 70.
4 Hafer v. United Airlines, Inc., ARB No. 02-088, ALJ No. 2002-AIR-005 (ARB Apr. 26, 2006).
5 Tr. at 166.
6 Hafer v. United Airlines, Inc., ARB Nos. 05-073, 05-092, ALJ No. 2005-AIR-008 (ARB June 16, 2005).
7 R. D. & O. at 11.
8 Id.. at 13.
9 29 C.F.R. § 1979.110. See also Secretary’s Order 1-2002, 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002) (delegating to ARB the Secretary’s authority to issue final orders under, inter alia, AIR 21 § 42121).
10 Mehan v. Delta Air Lines, ARB No. 03-070, ALJ No. 2003-AIR-004, slip op. at 2 (ARB Feb. 24, 2005); Negron v. Vieques Air Link, Inc., ARB No. 04-021, ALJ No. 2003-AIR-010, slip op. at 5 (ARB Dec. 30, 2004).
11 29 C.F.R. § 1979.110(b).
12 49 U.S.C.A. § 42121(a).
13 49 U.S.C.A. § 42121(a), (b)(2)(B)(iii); 29 C.F.R. § 1979.104(b)(1)(i)-(iv).
14 § 42121(b)(2)(B)(iv). See, e.g., Peck v. Safe Air Int’l, Inc., ARB 02-028, ALJ No. 2001-AIR-003, slip op. at 22 (ARB Jan. 30, 2004).
15 R. D. & O. at 13.
16 Petition for Review at 4. Hafer also states in his Petition for Review that "United Airlines has refused to pay Complainant’s ‘out-of-pocket medical expenses.’" Petition for Review at 2. We do not consider this to be a challenge to the ALJ’s ruling that the only timely allegation presented by Hafer involves his VRMA benefits. R. D. & O. at 11. Hafer also fails to challenge United’s contention that his request for out-of-pocket medical expenses was a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the WCAB. R. D. & O. at 7, citing RX 9.
17 R. D. & O. at 13-14.
18 Petition for Review at 7.
19 See 49 U.S.C.A. § 42121(b)(2)(B)(iv); 29 C.F.R. § 1979.104(c); Peck, slip op at 18-19, n 7.
20 The ALJ found that the correct spelling of the claims examiner’s name is "D’ammico." R. D. & O. at 3, n 2.
21 Tr. at 354.
22 See, e.g., Williams v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., ARB No. 98-059, ALJ No. 1995-CAA-010, slip op. at 6-7 (ARB Jan. 31, 2001).
23 Motion at 4.
24 See January 18, 2005 letter from Judge Mapes to Hafer regarding subpoena requests; see also Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents (seeking issuance of subpoenas to the FAA, OSHA, and the U.S. Department of Transportation).