On June 6, 2018, Robin Fernandes submitted a document to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) after the agency had adjudicated her matter on June 1, 2018. I hereby consider that document as a Motion for Reconsideration. 801 C.M.R. 1.01(7)(l).
After careful consideration, Ms. Fernandes’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
801 C.M.R. 1.01(7)(l) provides for the filing of motions for reconsideration and reads:
After a decision has been rendered and before the expiration of the time for filing a request for review or appeal, a Party may move for reconsideration. The motion must identify a clerical or mechanical error in the decision or a significant factor the Agency or the Presiding Officer may have overlooked in deciding the case. A motion for reconsideration shall be deemed a motion for rehearing in accordance with M.G.L. c. 30A, § 14(1) for the purposes of tolling the time for appeal.
The Petitioner’s motion does not identify a clerical or mechanical error in the decision or a significant factor that was over looked. See Mary Morse v. State Board of Retirement, CR-13-491 at 2 (CRAB 12/21/2016). Rather, the Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration repeats the argument she made previously, and is identical to her April 11, 2018 Pre-Hearing Memorandum and the subsequent addenda. Ms. Fernandes fails to address the issue of jurisdiction, although the issue was raised in the DALA March 9, 2018 First Pre-Hearing Order and was the subject of the State Board of Retirement’s May 18, 2018 Motion to Dismiss.
Ms. Fernandes’ appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and her motion for reconsideration is denied.
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
Angela McConney Scheepers
DATED: June 8, 2018