2007-595, APPEAL OF DONALD CARREAU

McDowell & Osburn, P.A.

Retirement System) (Board of Trustees of the City of Manchester Employees’ Contributory

No. 2007-595

Manchester Retirement Board

Appeals of board decisions are governed by RSA chapter 541 (2007). See

McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, P.A. ___________________________

jurisdiction over his appeal, we dismiss it. settle his workers’ compensation claim. Because we conclude that we lack retirement pension by the amount he received from the City of Manchester to Employees’ Contributory Retirement System (board), to offset his disability decision of the respondent, the Board of Trustees of the City of Manchester DALIANIS, J. The petitioner, Donald R. Carreau, seeks to appeal a

chapter 541 must be filed “[w]ithin thirty days after the application for a Appeal of Stanton, 147 N.H. 724, 727 (2002). Appeals brought under RSA

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Johnson and Michael J. Kenison on the brief), for the respondent.

brief), for the petitioner.

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as p. 2 RSA ch. 541.” In re Petition of McHale Rule 11 procedures are not available to cure an appeal that is defective under appeal under Supreme Court Rule 11, he is mistaken about this as well. “Our Although the petitioner asserts that we have original jurisdiction over his to be filed by a date certain.” Phetteplace v. Town of Lyme legislature could not have more clearly expressed its intent to require appeals “[w]ithin thirty days” after an application for rehearing is denied. “The The explicit language of RSA 541:6 requires that an appeal be brought

equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements.” Bowles v. Russell Contrary to the petitioner’s assertions, we have “no authority to create waive this period for “good cause shown,” it could have said so explicitly. See (2000). Had the legislature intended to confer authority upon the court to

enforcement of, or otherwise review or impeach” any board decision). 541 may be brought “in any court of this state to set aside, enjoin the 541:22 (“[n]o proceeding” other than the appeal provided for by RSA chapter

regarding compliance with statutory time requirements, and, thus, “[o]ne day’s We have repeatedly held that New Hampshire follows the majority rule period for “good cause” as set forth in Supreme Court Rule 1. He is mistaken. The petitioner contends that the court may waive the thirty-day appeal 137 N.H. at 297. use this concept to establish jurisdiction . . . in the first instance.” Dermody, procedural requirements “for . . . good cause shown,” Sup. Ct. R. 1, we “cannot Dermody, 137 N.H. at 296. While we have the discretion to waive our own jurisdiction . . . must be distinguished from . . . [our] own procedural rules.” Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007). “Statutory time requirements relative to the vesting of

lapsed). Accordingly, his appeal must be dismissed. (dismissing appeal filed two days after thirty-day period set forth in RSA 541:6 period set forth in RSA 541:6); LaCroix v. Mountain, 116 N.H. 545, 546 (1976) (1994) (dismissing appeal filed nearly one year after expiration of thirty-day jurisdiction to hear his appeal. See Appeal of Courville, 139 N.H. 119, 125 the appeal period set forth in RSA 541:6, therefore, deprives this court of appellate body.” Id. (quotation omitted). The petitioner’s failure to comply with appeal period “is a necessary prerequisite to establishing jurisdiction in the 294, 296 (1993). Specifically, we have held that compliance with a statutory

one day late. filed his appeal on September 6, 2007. He concedes that he filed his appeal had to file his appeal on or before September 5, 2007. The petitioner, however, petitioner’s motion for rehearing on August 6, 2007. Therefore, to be timely, he after the decision on such rehearing.” RSA 541:6. The board denied the rehearing is denied, or, if the application is granted, then within thirty days p. 3 3

Appeal dismissed

this untimely-filed appeal and hereby dismiss it. For all of the above reasons, therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider

BRODERICK, C.J.