Opinion

Kalfountzos v. United States of America Railroad Retirement Board

  • 427 F. App'x 612
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Apr 20, 2011
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Fletcher, Clifton, Bea
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 65.9%

The opinion

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NIKIFOROS P. KALFOUNTZOS, No. 09-72253

Petitioner, R.R.B. No. A-XXX-XX-XXXX

v.

MEMORANDUM *

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of a Decision of the

United States Railroad Retirement Board

Submitted April 5, 2011 **

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Nikiforos P. Kalfountzos petitions pro se for review of the Railroad

Retirement Board’s (“Board”) decision affirming the hearing officer’s denial of his

application for a disability annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act. We have

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

jurisdiction under 45 U.S.C. § 231g, which incorporates 45 U.S.C. § 355(f). We

deny the petition for review.

We uphold the Board’s decision because it “‘is supported by substantial

evidence, is not arbitrary and has a reasonable basis in the law.’” Calderon v. U.S.

R.R. Ret. Bd., 780 F.2d 812, 813 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted); see also 45

U.S.C. § 231(a)(1) (defining “employer”); id. § 231(f)(1) (defining “years of

service”); id. § 231a (setting forth required years of service for annuity eligibility).

Kalfountzos’s remaining contentions, including his equal protection

challenge, are unpersuasive. See U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174-179

(1981) (rejecting plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge to Railroad Retirement Act

under the rational basis test).

We do not consider contentions that Kalfountzos did not raise before the

Board. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘[I]f a

petitioner wishes to preserve an issue for appeal, he must first raise it in the proper

administrative forum.’” (citation omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 09-72253

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.