United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

O.O., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, INTERNATIONAL 

SERVICE CENTER, Chicago, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1321 

Issued: September 8, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 19, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal of a February 6, 2014 nonmerit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). As more than 180 days elapsed 

since the most recent merit decision of OWCP dated January 23, 2013 and the filing of this 

appeal on May 19, 2014, pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 

C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as 

untimely filed under 5 U.S.C. § 8124. 

On appeal, appellant contends that along with work, therapy and running to doctor’s 

appointments, the paperwork got away from her. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 22, 2012 appellant, then a 60-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that she suffered injuries to her right shoulder, neck and arms as a result of 

repetitive lifting and throwing of mail. By decision dated January 23, 2013, OWCP denied 

appellant’s claim because she had failed to establish a medical diagnosis causally related to 

factors of her employment. 

On January 4, 2014 appellant requested an oral hearing. Her request was dated 

January 4, 2014 and the postmark indicates that the request was mailed on the same date. 

By decision dated February 6, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s request for an oral 

hearing as it was untimely filed. It further reviewed appellant’s request at its discretion, and 

determined that the issue could equally well be addressed by requesting reconsideration and 

submitting evidence not previously considered which establishes that appellant sustained an 

injury in the performance of her federal employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides that, before review under section 8128(a) of this 

title, a claimant for compensation not satisfied with a decision of the Secretary is entitled, on 

request made within 30 days after the date of the issuance of the decision, to a hearing on his or 

her claim before a representative of the Secretary.2 Section 10.615 of the federal regulations 

implementing this section of FECA provides that a claimant shall be afforded a choice of an oral 

hearing or a review of the written record.3 OWCP’s regulations provide that the request must be 

sent within 30 days of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought and also that the 

claimant must not have previously submitted a reconsideration request (whether or not it was 

granted) on the same decision.4 A claimant is entitled to a hearing as a matter of right if the 

request is filed within 30 days.5

The Board has held that OWCP, in its broad discretionary authority in the administration 

of FECA,6

 has the power to hold hearings in certain circumstances where no legal provision was 

made for such hearings and that OWCP must exercise this discretionary authority in deciding 

whether to grant a hearing.7 OWCP’s procedures, which require OWCP to exercise its discretion 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.615. 

4 Id. at § 10.616(a). 

5 See Leona B. Jacobs, 55 ECAB 753 (2004). 

6

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

7 Marilyn F. Wilson, 52 ECAB 347 (2001). 
3

to grant or deny a hearing or review of the written record when the request is untimely or made 

after reconsideration, are a proper interpretation of Board precedent.8 

ANALYSIS 

In a decision dated January 23, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation. 

Appellant’s request for an oral hearing of this decision was dated and postmarked 

January 4, 2014.9

 In a decision dated February 6, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s hearing 

request as untimely. As appellant’s request for a hearing was postmarked January 4, 2014, more 

than 30 days after OWCP issued its January 23, 2013 decision, she was not entitled to a hearing 

as a matter of right. 

OWCP has the discretionary power to grant a hearing or review of the written record 

when a claimant is not entitled to a hearing or review as a matter of right.10 In its February 6, 

2014 decision, it properly exercised its discretion by stating that it had considered the matter in 

relation to the issue involved and had determined that the case could be resolved by submitting 

additional evidence to OWCP with a reconsideration request. The Board has held that the only 

limitation on OWCP’s discretionary authority is reasonableness. An abuse of discretion is 

generally shown through proof of manifest error, clearly unreasonable exercise of judgment, or 

actions taken which are contrary to both logic and probable deduction from the established 

facts.11 The evidence does not establish that OWCP abused its discretion by denying appellant’s 

request for an oral hearing. Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied her 

request for an oral hearing as untimely under section 8124. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as 

untimely filed under 5 U.S.C. § 8124. 

 8

 Teresa M. Valle, 57 ECAB 542 (2006). See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and 

Reviews of the Written Record, Chapter 2.1601.2(a) (October 2011). 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a). See N.M., 59 ECAB 511 (2008) (a hearing request must be sent within 30 days of the 

date of the decision for which a hearing is sought as determined by postmark or other carrier’s date marking). 

10 Afegalai L Boone, 53 ECAB 533 (2002). 

11 P.S., Docket No. 13-2027 (issued July 2, 2014); see also André Thyratron, 54 ECAB 257 (2002).
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated February 6, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: September 8, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board