State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath (Slip Opinion)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that petitioners were required to present their Appointments Clause challenges to the Department of Labor’s Benefits Review Board, in order to preserve them for judicial review
• holding that claimants forfeited the Appointments Clause claim under the Black Lungs Benefits Act when they raised it before the Board for the first time in a reconsideration motion
• explaining that under a similar statute, issue exhaustion is required only if “an agency’s rules so require”
• reaffirming that “our decades-long precedent has refused to consider issues that parties failed to present to the Board”
• observing that this type of discretion is often referred to as “prudential” exhaustion (citation omitted)
• rejecting for failure to exhaust Appointments Clause claims that were raised for the first time in motions for reconsideration of decisions of the Benefits Review Board, contrary to its regulations and interpretation thereof

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).