United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

P.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Needham, MA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-300 

Issued: May 12, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

John L. Whitehouse, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

On November 25, 2013 appellant, through his attorney, filed a timely appeal from the 

October 3, 2013 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) 

denying his request for reconsideration of a July 13, 2012 merit decision on the grounds that it 

was untimely filed and failed to establish clear evidence of error. On appeal, appellant’s attorney 

contends that appellant’s request for reconsideration was timely filed and that, therefore, OWCP 

improperly reviewed the reconsideration request under the standard for untimely requests. The 

Board docketed the appeal as No. 14-300. 

The Board has reviewed the case record on appeal and finds that the case must be 

remanded to OWCP for application of the appropriate standard of review because appellant’s 

request for reconsideration was timely submitted. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for small plantar calcaneal spur of the left heel and left 

tibialis tendinitis. By decision dated May 16, 2011, it terminated his benefits effective 

June 4, 2011. In a decision dated December 15, 2011, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed 

the termination of benefits, but remanded for OWCP to undertake further development of the 

evidence and to issue a de novo decision on the issue of whether the claim should be expanded 

for a consequential back injury and, if so, whether appellant was entitled to wage-loss 

compensation due to the disability caused by the consequential injury. In a decision dated 

July 13, 2012, OWCP denied his request for expansion of his claim to include a consequential 
2

injury. In an appeal request form dated July 5, 2013 and received by OWCP on July 15, 2013, 

appellant requested reconsideration. In a decision dated October 3, 2013, it denied his request 

for reconsideration on the grounds that it was untimely filed. 

The Board has considered the matter and finds that the request for reconsideration 

received on July 15, 2013 constituted a timely request for reconsideration. Section 10.607(a) of 

the implementing regulations provide that an application for reconsideration must be received 

within one year of the date of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.1

 The Board has 

held that, in computing a time period, the date of the event from which the designated period of 

time begins to run shall not be included while the last day of the period so computed shall be 

included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday.2

 The last merit decision in this case 

is dated July 13, 2012 and appellant’s request for reconsideration was received by OWCP on 

July 15, 2013. Appellant had one year from the July 13, 2012 decision to request 

reconsideration. The Board notes, however, that July 13, 2013 fell on a Saturday. It is well 

established that when a time limitation expires on a nonbusiness day, the limitation is extended 

to include the next business day.3 Therefore, because the time limitation for filing a request for 

reconsideration fell on Saturday, the time period for filing a request for reconsideration did not 

expire until the next business day, which was Monday, July 15, 2013. 

The Board concludes that appellant’s request for reconsideration was received by the 

close of business on July 15 2013, rendering it timely filed. The case will be remanded to 

OWCP for consideration of appellant’s request under the standard for reviewing a timely request 

for reconsideration.4

 

 1

 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). 

2 John B. Montoya, 43 ECAB 1148, 1151 (1992); see Donna A. Christley, 41 ECAB 90, 91 (1989). 

3 See M.H., Docket No. 13-1901 (issued January 8, 2014); Debra McDavid, 57 ECAB 149, 150 (2005); Angel M. 

Lebron, Jr., 51 ECAB 488, 490 (2000); Gary J. Martinez, 41 ECAB 427, 427-28 (1990); FECA Program No. 250 

(issued January 29, 1979). 

4

 The standard is found at 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 3, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside. The case is remanded to OWCP for application 

of the proper standard for reviewing a timely request for reconsideration. 

Issued: May 12, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board